High Court · 2025

2. Heard Ms. Archana Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiva Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 82 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rasoolpur, District Firozabad.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 17.02.2024 by Santosh Kumar against Akash, Rajveer and one unknown person, under Section 307 I.P.C. with the allegation that on 17.02.2024 at about 4.10 p.m. his niece Soni was in the house of her father wherein her in-laws being husband Akash, father-in- law Rajveer and some companions together sprinkled kerosene on her and set her ablaze due to which she sustained serious injury and has been taken to district hospital and admitted there. Even previously Soni had initiated a case against her in-laws. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Smt. Soni Sharma subsequently died due to burn injuries and her postmortem examination was conducted on 25.02.2024 and the cause of death was opined as Hypovolumic Shock. A note in the postmortem examination reads that she was admitted in the medical college on 17.02.2024 at 7:50 PM and she died on 24.02.2024 at 3:20 PM. The statement of the deceased was recorded as her dying declaration in which although she names the applicant along with Rajveer Singh Sharma her father-in-law, Akash Sharma her husband and Ravi Thakur (the applicant) as a friend and also Ramdev a friend to be present but states that her husband sprinkled kerosene and set her on fire.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case was subsequently converted from Section 307 I.P.C. to Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 25 of the affidavit that the applicant is neither a relative nor family member of the deceased and hence is falsely implicated. It is submitted that the applicant is friend of the husband of the deceased and even as per the dying declaration there is no overt act assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.01.2025.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the dying declaration of the deceased the applicant is named specifically and is stated to be present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident, however, the other arguments are not disputed & denied. Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance of the previous order dated 10.03.2025, he has received instructions in the matter and as per the instructions received the investigation in the matter in so far as the applicant is concerned is still going on. It is submitted that recital in the bail application that the applicant is in jail since 16.05.2024 is incorrect and as per his instructions the applicant is in jail since 27.01.2025.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is neither a relative nor family member of the husband of the deceased. The applicant is friend of the husband of the deceased. In the dying declaration no specific overt act has been assigned to him. The role of sprinkling kerosene and setting the deceased on fire is assigned to the husband.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Ravi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Ms. Archana Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiva Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 82 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rasoolpur, District Firozabad.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 17.02.2024 by Santosh Kumar against Akash, Rajveer and one unknown person, under Section 307 I.P.C. with the allegation that on 17.02.2024 at about 4.10 p.m. his niece Soni was in the house of her father wherein her in-laws being husband Akash, father-in- law Rajveer and some companions together sprinkled kerosene on her and set her ablaze due to which she sustained serious injury and has been taken to district hospital and admitted there. Even previously Soni had initiated a case against her in-laws. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Smt. Soni Sharma subsequently died due to burn injuries and her postmortem examination was conducted on 25.02.2024 and the cause of death was opined as Hypovolumic Shock. A note in the postmortem examination reads that she was admitted in the medical college on 17.02.2024 at 7:50 PM and she died on 24.02.2024 at 3:20 PM. The statement of the deceased was recorded as her dying declaration in which although she names the applicant along with Rajveer Singh Sharma her father-in-law, Akash Sharma her husband and Ravi Thakur (the applicant) as a friend and also Ramdev a friend to be present but states that her husband sprinkled kerosene and set her on fire.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case was subsequently converted from Section 307 I.P.C. to Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 25 of the affidavit that the applicant is neither a relative nor family member of the deceased and hence is falsely implicated. It is submitted that the applicant is friend of the husband of the deceased and even as per the dying declaration there is no overt act assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.01.2025.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the dying declaration of the deceased the applicant is named specifically and is stated to be present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident, however, the other arguments are not disputed & denied. Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance of the previous order dated 10.03.2025, he has received instructions in the matter and as per the instructions received the investigation in the matter in so far as the applicant is concerned is still going on. It is submitted that recital in the bail application that the applicant is in jail since 16.05.2024 is incorrect and as per his instructions the applicant is in jail since 27.01.2025.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is neither a relative nor family member of the husband of the deceased. The applicant is friend of the husband of the deceased. In the dying declaration no specific overt act has been assigned to him. The role of sprinkling kerosene and setting the deceased on fire is assigned to the husband.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Ravi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad