High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Narendra Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Aditya Kumar Rai and Ms. Anjali Jaiswal, learned counsels for the first informant are not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Afzal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.266 of 2020, u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra.

4. This is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47112 of 2021 (Afzal Vs. State of U.P.). Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2022 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42402 of 2022 (Afzal Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the present case nine witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2020. It is further argued that the trial will still take time and as such the applicant be released on bail.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first and second bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits by this Court vide orders dated 5.1.2022 and 19.11.2022. It is submitted that while rejecting the second bail application vide order dated 19.11.2022 the trial of the matter was expedited by this Court but there is nothing on record to show that the said order has been filed by the applicant before the trial court and the trial court was in the knowledge of the same by which the trial was expedited.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned State counsel and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Afzal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 266 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant although is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the applicant with the deceased Smt. Nazma was solemnized on 12.09.2017and the couple were leading a happy married life as is evident from the fact that a child was born from the wedlock. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the post mortem report wherein the doctor has found single ligature mark on the body of the deceased and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is argued that Sabuddin and Suhail Chaudhary two independent witnesses who were interrogated by the investigating officer being the neighbours of the applicant, have stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from the clamp of roof. It is argued that there was never any demand of dowry by the applicant and his other family members and the deceased was never subjected to any cruelty and harassment and the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and concocted. Learned counsel while placing para-15 of the affidavit before the Court, has argued that the deceased was a lady of rigid nature and she committed suicide by hanging herself inside the room. Further while placing para-19 of the affidavit learned counsel has argued that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2020. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial house after about 40 months of her marriage. The applicant is husband of the deceased and there is no explanation coming forward from the side of the applicant regarding the reason for his wife committing suicide. It is argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him of demand of dowry, harassment and torture of the deceased. It is argued that investigation in the matter has concluded and even charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial house. Burden as being discharged by the applicant by placing para-15 of the affidavit does not in any manner is sufficient reason for the same. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2022 by which trial of the matter was expedited, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Afzal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 266 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47112 of 2021 (Afzal Vs. State of U.P.). Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing para 21 of the affidavit it is argued that the applicant was strolling seller of carpets and bed sheets in the village but his wife who is the deceased preferred living in Delhi, the deceased has visited her parental home frequently but because of the aforesaid reasons, she lived unwillingly with the applicant and his family members. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide. It is further argued that the trial in the present matter has started in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2020. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. There is no other fresh and new ground made in the present case. It is further argued that since the trial in the present case, has started and two witnesses have been examined, releasing the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect in the trial as the applicant may tamper with evidence and pressurize the witnesses. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. The trial is under progress. There is no fresh and new ground pleaded and argued by the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (decided on 04.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment."

9. Learned counsel for the applicant was countered as to when the said order was filed before the trial court and brought to the notice of the trial court for its compliance and expeditious disposal to which he submitted that the said order has not been filed before the trial court. In these circumstances the fact remains that the order dated 19.11.2022 expediting the trial of the matter by this Court has not been filed before the trial court and was not in the knowledge of the trial court. The trial is going on in which nine witnesses have been examined. It cannot be said that the trial is not going on despite the order of expediting the trial was not brought to the notice of the trial court. The trial court is diligently proceeding with the trial.

10. 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 :- 24.2.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Narendra Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Aditya Kumar Rai and Ms. Anjali Jaiswal, learned counsels for the first informant are not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Afzal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.266 of 2020, u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra.

4. This is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47112 of 2021 (Afzal Vs. State of U.P.). Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2022 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42402 of 2022 (Afzal Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the present case nine witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2020. It is further argued that the trial will still take time and as such the applicant be released on bail.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first and second bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits by this Court vide orders dated 5.1.2022 and 19.11.2022. It is submitted that while rejecting the second bail application vide order dated 19.11.2022 the trial of the matter was expedited by this Court but there is nothing on record to show that the said order has been filed by the applicant before the trial court and the trial court was in the knowledge of the same by which the trial was expedited.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned State counsel and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Afzal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 266 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant although is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the applicant with the deceased Smt. Nazma was solemnized on 12.09.2017and the couple were leading a happy married life as is evident from the fact that a child was born from the wedlock. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the post mortem report wherein the doctor has found single ligature mark on the body of the deceased and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is argued that Sabuddin and Suhail Chaudhary two independent witnesses who were interrogated by the investigating officer being the neighbours of the applicant, have stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from the clamp of roof. It is argued that there was never any demand of dowry by the applicant and his other family members and the deceased was never subjected to any cruelty and harassment and the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and concocted. Learned counsel while placing para-15 of the affidavit before the Court, has argued that the deceased was a lady of rigid nature and she committed suicide by hanging herself inside the room. Further while placing para-19 of the affidavit learned counsel has argued that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2020. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial house after about 40 months of her marriage. The applicant is husband of the deceased and there is no explanation coming forward from the side of the applicant regarding the reason for his wife committing suicide. It is argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him of demand of dowry, harassment and torture of the deceased. It is argued that investigation in the matter has concluded and even charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial house. Burden as being discharged by the applicant by placing para-15 of the affidavit does not in any manner is sufficient reason for the same. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2022 by which trial of the matter was expedited, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Afzal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 266 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47112 of 2021 (Afzal Vs. State of U.P.). Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing para 21 of the affidavit it is argued that the applicant was strolling seller of carpets and bed sheets in the village but his wife who is the deceased preferred living in Delhi, the deceased has visited her parental home frequently but because of the aforesaid reasons, she lived unwillingly with the applicant and his family members. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide. It is further argued that the trial in the present matter has started in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2020. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. There is no other fresh and new ground made in the present case. It is further argued that since the trial in the present case, has started and two witnesses have been examined, releasing the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect in the trial as the applicant may tamper with evidence and pressurize the witnesses. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. The trial is under progress. There is no fresh and new ground pleaded and argued by the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (decided on 04.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment."

9. Learned counsel for the applicant was countered as to when the said order was filed before the trial court and brought to the notice of the trial court for its compliance and expeditious disposal to which he submitted that the said order has not been filed before the trial court. In these circumstances the fact remains that the order dated 19.11.2022 expediting the trial of the matter by this Court has not been filed before the trial court and was not in the knowledge of the trial court. The trial is going on in which nine witnesses have been examined. It cannot be said that the trial is not going on despite the order of expediting the trial was not brought to the notice of the trial court. The trial court is diligently proceeding with the trial.

10. 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 :- 24.2.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad