High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Upendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, 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 Agarhari, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0355 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 12.08.2024 by Ram Chandra Agrahari against the applicant, Rajan Agrahari (husband) and Smt. Usha Agrahari (mother-in-law) with the allegation that the incident in matter is of 11/12.08.2024 at about 1.30 am. The marriage of his daughter Nandini was solemnized on 31.01.2023 with Rajan Agrahari. After marriage the accused persons used to taunt her for less dowry. She used to tell him while crying and used to be consoled but the accused persons did not stop their demand and continued their torture & harassment. He received an information that his daughter has died. He reached there and found her to be dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died. It is submitted that a note was found in the diary of the deceased which is transcribed in the case-diary also in which she states of committing suicide. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit that the injury received by the deceased was actually caused by fall from the third floor of the building and hitting the tin- shade situated on the first floor of the same building. Further while placing paragraph 20 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was a short-tempered lady and she took the extreme step of committing suicide by jumping from the roof of the third floor of the house. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge-sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, paragraph 16 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 23 of the affidavit that the applicant is an old man suffering from age related chronic ailments. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 and is in jail since 22.08.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and 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 are allegations against him. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received three incised wounds and multiple fracture over chest and the cause of death was opined as coma due to antermortem head injury. It is further submitted that in so far as the ground taken by the applicant that the deceased committed suicide is concerned, the same does not transpire confidence.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. The deceased Nandini was found to have received four injuries on her person. The same reads as under:- "1. Incised wound of size 13x1.5cm over the left frontal to temporal region up to brain deep, skull bone fracture, On cutting scalp hematoma present, On opening skull brain membrane hematoma present.

2. Incised wound of size 4cmx1cm over the chin left side.

3. Multiple ribs fracture present over chest, On cutting skin and opening abdominal cavity spleen rupture present.

4. Incised wound of size 7cmx1cm over the front of mid shaft of tibia (left)."

8. The cause of death is coma due to antermortem head injury. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The argument and ground as taken that the deceased actually received injuries due to fall from the third floor of the building and by hitting tin shade situated on the first floor does not transpire confidence. 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."

9. 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.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Upendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, 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 Agarhari, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0355 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 12.08.2024 by Ram Chandra Agrahari against the applicant, Rajan Agrahari (husband) and Smt. Usha Agrahari (mother-in-law) with the allegation that the incident in matter is of 11/12.08.2024 at about 1.30 am. The marriage of his daughter Nandini was solemnized on 31.01.2023 with Rajan Agrahari. After marriage the accused persons used to taunt her for less dowry. She used to tell him while crying and used to be consoled but the accused persons did not stop their demand and continued their torture & harassment. He received an information that his daughter has died. He reached there and found her to be dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died. It is submitted that a note was found in the diary of the deceased which is transcribed in the case-diary also in which she states of committing suicide. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit that the injury received by the deceased was actually caused by fall from the third floor of the building and hitting the tin- shade situated on the first floor of the same building. Further while placing paragraph 20 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was a short-tempered lady and she took the extreme step of committing suicide by jumping from the roof of the third floor of the house. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge-sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, paragraph 16 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 23 of the affidavit that the applicant is an old man suffering from age related chronic ailments. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 and is in jail since 22.08.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and 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 are allegations against him. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received three incised wounds and multiple fracture over chest and the cause of death was opined as coma due to antermortem head injury. It is further submitted that in so far as the ground taken by the applicant that the deceased committed suicide is concerned, the same does not transpire confidence.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. The deceased Nandini was found to have received four injuries on her person. The same reads as under:- "1. Incised wound of size 13x1.5cm over the left frontal to temporal region up to brain deep, skull bone fracture, On cutting scalp hematoma present, On opening skull brain membrane hematoma present.

2. Incised wound of size 4cmx1cm over the chin left side.

3. Multiple ribs fracture present over chest, On cutting skin and opening abdominal cavity spleen rupture present.

4. Incised wound of size 7cmx1cm over the front of mid shaft of tibia (left)."

8. The cause of death is coma due to antermortem head injury. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The argument and ground as taken that the deceased actually received injuries due to fall from the third floor of the building and by hitting tin shade situated on the first floor does not transpire confidence. 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."

9. 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.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad