High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Parmeshwar Kr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ashok Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 60 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 80(2), 85, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jaitpur, District Agra.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 05.10.2024 by Sanju against Sunil Kumar / husband, Ashok Kumar / father-in-law (the applicant), Ram Kunwar / mother-in-law, Ram Kumar / Jeth and Kunti Devi / chachia saas with the allegation that his daughter Priya was married in the year 2022 to Sunil Kumar for which he had given gifts and dowry as per his caliber and status. He had also given jewellery of gold & silver, gifts of Rs. 08 lakhs and cash. After marriage the in-laws of his daughter started becoming greedy and started raising demand of dowry for which they used to torture & assault his daughter. Many times they were consoled and even compromise was entered socially after which he sent back his daughter to her matrimonial house. On 03.10.2024 his son went and brought his daughter back to the house wherein Sunil the husband on telephone showed his anger and said that he may immediately send back his daughter on which his son Mohit immediately went back and dropped his daughter. Sunil and other in-laws started demanding dowry and stated that if a car is given only then he can take back his daughter. There was a demand regularly. Subsequently on 04.10.2024 the accused persons murdered his daughter.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant is living separately from the deceased and her husband, paragraph 23 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that the independent witnesses have stated that the deceased has not liked her marriage with Sunil. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 and is in jail since 29.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is an allegation against him. It is submitted that the deceased apart from ligature mark was also found to have received two other injuries and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is submitted that the applicant is actively involved in the present matter and as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased but he is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. There had been various times compromise by the first informant to get the issue subsided even through social means but the same could not materialize. The deceased was found to have received three injuries on her person which reads as under:- "1. Ligature mark- A Faint reddish coloured ligature mark of length 20 cm of width varying from 3-4 cm was present over anterior surface of neck at the level of thyroid and above. It was horizontally placed going backwards up to right and left mastoid process. Its upper border was situated 5 cm below the chin at front of neck at midline and 3cm below the left mastoid process and 4 cm below the right mastoid process. The ligature mark was missing at back of neck over 14 cm. On dissection underlying tissues were mildly ecchymosed. On further dissection there was inward fracture of outer one third of greater cornua (horn) of right side of hyoid bone. Bony trabeculae showed blood infiltration at fractured ends. The associated soft tissue around the fracture site was deeply ecchymosed. On dissection of thyroid cartilage the inner mucosa were found ecchymosed.

2. A reddish contusion of size 1 x 0.5 cm was present over inner aspect of left side of lower lip which was situated 0.5 cm left to midline and 1.0 cm away from lateral end of left side of mouth. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.

3. A reddish contusion of size 2 x 1 cm was present over forehead and it was situated 4cm above the right eyebrow and I cm left to mid line. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed."

8. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of strangulation, however, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis but the cause of death is conclusive.

9. Looking to the nature of injuries and the opinion given therein strangulation is a situation which cannot in any manner be found in a case of suicide, various persons are involved in it. The Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. the State of U.P. & Another in SLP (Crl.) No. 15156 of 2024 has stated that granting of bail in such matters has to be considered seriously looking to the gravity of offence. Paragraph 15 of the said judgement reads as under:- "15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (Chaman Lal v. State of UP.. (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974], Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]: Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286: (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 1368]: Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words: (SCC p. 224, para 24) "24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court." Considerations for setting aside bail orders

28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused."

10. In view of the above looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 AS Rathore ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Samit Gopal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Parmeshwar Kr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ashok Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 60 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 80(2), 85, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jaitpur, District Agra.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 05.10.2024 by Sanju against Sunil Kumar / husband, Ashok Kumar / father-in-law (the applicant), Ram Kunwar / mother-in-law, Ram Kumar / Jeth and Kunti Devi / chachia saas with the allegation that his daughter Priya was married in the year 2022 to Sunil Kumar for which he had given gifts and dowry as per his caliber and status. He had also given jewellery of gold & silver, gifts of Rs. 08 lakhs and cash. After marriage the in-laws of his daughter started becoming greedy and started raising demand of dowry for which they used to torture & assault his daughter. Many times they were consoled and even compromise was entered socially after which he sent back his daughter to her matrimonial house. On 03.10.2024 his son went and brought his daughter back to the house wherein Sunil the husband on telephone showed his anger and said that he may immediately send back his daughter on which his son Mohit immediately went back and dropped his daughter. Sunil and other in-laws started demanding dowry and stated that if a car is given only then he can take back his daughter. There was a demand regularly. Subsequently on 04.10.2024 the accused persons murdered his daughter.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant is living separately from the deceased and her husband, paragraph 23 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that the independent witnesses have stated that the deceased has not liked her marriage with Sunil. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 and is in jail since 29.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is an allegation against him. It is submitted that the deceased apart from ligature mark was also found to have received two other injuries and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is submitted that the applicant is actively involved in the present matter and as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased but he is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. There had been various times compromise by the first informant to get the issue subsided even through social means but the same could not materialize. The deceased was found to have received three injuries on her person which reads as under:- "1. Ligature mark- A Faint reddish coloured ligature mark of length 20 cm of width varying from 3-4 cm was present over anterior surface of neck at the level of thyroid and above. It was horizontally placed going backwards up to right and left mastoid process. Its upper border was situated 5 cm below the chin at front of neck at midline and 3cm below the left mastoid process and 4 cm below the right mastoid process. The ligature mark was missing at back of neck over 14 cm. On dissection underlying tissues were mildly ecchymosed. On further dissection there was inward fracture of outer one third of greater cornua (horn) of right side of hyoid bone. Bony trabeculae showed blood infiltration at fractured ends. The associated soft tissue around the fracture site was deeply ecchymosed. On dissection of thyroid cartilage the inner mucosa were found ecchymosed.

2. A reddish contusion of size 1 x 0.5 cm was present over inner aspect of left side of lower lip which was situated 0.5 cm left to midline and 1.0 cm away from lateral end of left side of mouth. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed.

3. A reddish contusion of size 2 x 1 cm was present over forehead and it was situated 4cm above the right eyebrow and I cm left to mid line. On dissection underlying tissues were found ecchymosed."

8. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of strangulation, however, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis but the cause of death is conclusive.

9. Looking to the nature of injuries and the opinion given therein strangulation is a situation which cannot in any manner be found in a case of suicide, various persons are involved in it. The Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. the State of U.P. & Another in SLP (Crl.) No. 15156 of 2024 has stated that granting of bail in such matters has to be considered seriously looking to the gravity of offence. Paragraph 15 of the said judgement reads as under:- "15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (Chaman Lal v. State of UP.. (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974], Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]: Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286: (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 1368]: Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words: (SCC p. 224, para 24) "24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court." Considerations for setting aside bail orders

28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused."

10. In view of the above looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 AS Rathore ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Samit Gopal,J.)