High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Rinku alias Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.257 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kaka Dev, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 12.7.2023 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30237 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the trial in the present matter has started in which Raju @ Rajesh, the first informant has been examined as P.W.1, Smt. Rani, the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.2 and Nagendra Kumar, mama of the deceased has been examined as P.W.3 before the trial court and all the said three witnesses in their statements which are annexed from annexures 4 to 6 of the bail application have in their cross-examination stated that there was no dispute between the victim and her in-laws. Thus the implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. The applicant is in jail since 24.7.2021.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.7.2023. In so far as statements of three witnesses are concerned, they in their examination-in-chief have supported the prosecution case. The appreciation of the statement of the witnesses whose testimony have been recorded is for the trial court at the appropriate stage. Giving any opinion at this stage on statement of witnesses given in cross-examination would have an adverse effect in trial, as such bail application be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.7.2025 which reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Rinku alias Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.257 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kaka Dev, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 23.8.2021 by Raju against the applicant, Jai Pratap and Indu @ Manju alleging therein that his daughter Smt. Anjali was married to applicant around three years back. There was a demand of dowry and a motorcycle from her by the applicant, her mother-in- law and father-in-law. Since the demand could not be fulfilled, on 22.8.2021 the deceased committed suicide and died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the case of the prosecution as per FIR itself is that the deceased committed suicide. The matter thus would not come under Section 304-B IPC. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR against the applicant and his family members. The deceased was found to have received a ligature mark on her body along with two other injuries but the said two injuries did not contribute to her death and could have been received during the process of committing suicide. The doctor has opined the cause of death asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging which is suggestive of suicide. While placing para no.17 of the affidavit, it is argued that the wife of the applicant was short tempered lady and could not adjust to live with the parents of the applicant and wanted to live separately but the applicant since was not having good income, was not in a position to separate from his family due to which she was unhappy and committed suicide. While placing para no.20 of the affidavit, it is argued that applicant is not having any criminal history and is in jail since 24.7.2021.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within three years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The burden on the applicant to be discharged regarding death of his wife is not convincing at all. The applicant is named in the FIR and there is allegation of demand of dowry.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within three years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The burden on the applicant to be discharged regarding death of his wife is not convincing at all. The trial has started in which the evidence of first witness is being recorded.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

9. However, the applicant may approach the learned trial court for expediting the trial on which the trial court may consider all the aspects of the matter and pass appropriate orders."

8. The trial in the matter is going on in which three witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. The opinion on the version given in cross-examination would not be in the fitness of things in an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Rinku alias Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.257 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kaka Dev, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 12.7.2023 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30237 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the trial in the present matter has started in which Raju @ Rajesh, the first informant has been examined as P.W.1, Smt. Rani, the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.2 and Nagendra Kumar, mama of the deceased has been examined as P.W.3 before the trial court and all the said three witnesses in their statements which are annexed from annexures 4 to 6 of the bail application have in their cross-examination stated that there was no dispute between the victim and her in-laws. Thus the implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. The applicant is in jail since 24.7.2021.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.7.2023. In so far as statements of three witnesses are concerned, they in their examination-in-chief have supported the prosecution case. The appreciation of the statement of the witnesses whose testimony have been recorded is for the trial court at the appropriate stage. Giving any opinion at this stage on statement of witnesses given in cross-examination would have an adverse effect in trial, as such bail application be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.7.2025 which reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Rinku alias Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.257 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kaka Dev, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 23.8.2021 by Raju against the applicant, Jai Pratap and Indu @ Manju alleging therein that his daughter Smt. Anjali was married to applicant around three years back. There was a demand of dowry and a motorcycle from her by the applicant, her mother-in- law and father-in-law. Since the demand could not be fulfilled, on 22.8.2021 the deceased committed suicide and died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the case of the prosecution as per FIR itself is that the deceased committed suicide. The matter thus would not come under Section 304-B IPC. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR against the applicant and his family members. The deceased was found to have received a ligature mark on her body along with two other injuries but the said two injuries did not contribute to her death and could have been received during the process of committing suicide. The doctor has opined the cause of death asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging which is suggestive of suicide. While placing para no.17 of the affidavit, it is argued that the wife of the applicant was short tempered lady and could not adjust to live with the parents of the applicant and wanted to live separately but the applicant since was not having good income, was not in a position to separate from his family due to which she was unhappy and committed suicide. While placing para no.20 of the affidavit, it is argued that applicant is not having any criminal history and is in jail since 24.7.2021.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within three years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The burden on the applicant to be discharged regarding death of his wife is not convincing at all. The applicant is named in the FIR and there is allegation of demand of dowry.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within three years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The burden on the applicant to be discharged regarding death of his wife is not convincing at all. The trial has started in which the evidence of first witness is being recorded.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

9. However, the applicant may approach the learned trial court for expediting the trial on which the trial court may consider all the aspects of the matter and pass appropriate orders."

8. The trial in the matter is going on in which three witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. The opinion on the version given in cross-examination would not be in the fitness of things in an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad