High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Uday Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 917 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 494, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandaa, District Agra.

3. F.I.R. lodged by the informant consists of the allegations that the deceased Jyoti Singh, sister of the informant, had performed love marriage with the appellant in the year 2019 and was living with him in a separate house. She belonged to SC/ST community whereas the appellant is Jat by caste. The deceased have taken divorce from her earlier husband and an amount of Rs. 10 lacs and jewellries, which she had got in the divorce petition, were grabbed by the appellant after delivery of a son. The accused appellant started torturing and harassing the deceased for dowry and caused cruelty to her to take money from her parental house. Subsequently she came to know about the marital status of the appellant that he was already having two daughters. Whenever she asked for some money for household expenditure, she was beaten by shoes and iron rod by the accused appellant and also hurled abuses by caste related remarks. On 20.12.2022 at about 5.00 P.M. when the mother of the informant contacted the deceased on mobile phone, her mobile phone was found switched off. Thereafter the informant and his mother went to the house of the appellant where his sister was lying dead on the bed in the house and after committing the murder of his sister, the accused appellant ran away alongwith his son. Named F.I.R. was lodged on 21.12.2022. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, at the time of death of the deceased, the appellant was not present in his house and in fact he had gone to attend a birthday function out of the village alongwith his son and the deceased was all alone in his house. It is next submitted that mother of the deceased works in police department and since the appellant had married her daughter, she was annoyed with him and kept animosity also. It is also submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and no incriminating evidence was received from the accused. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report, doctor has found cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem smothering and no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer did not investigate the matter in proper manner and submitted charge sheet in haste and arbitrary manner. It is also submitted that the case depends upon the circumstantial evidence but no circumstance has been proved against the accused appellant. It is next submitted that the trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is also submitted that the appellant has no previous criminal history to his credit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2022. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the accused appellant was husband of the deceased and since it was a love marriage, no question of giving any dowry arise. Since the death of the deceased caused in the house of the accused appellant who was husband of the deceased, he was all alone responsible for death of the deceased and he had to explain as to how and why the murder of his wife was committed. It is next submitted that it is clear case of dowry death and legal presumptions undoubtedly arise against the accused appellant. It is also submitted the medical evidence and inquest report corroborate the prosecution version. It is next submitted that trial has started and PW-1 informant and PW-2 mother of the deceased had corroborated the prosecution version in their testimony recorded before the court. On the said grounds, a request for dismissal of the present appeal has been made by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and particularly the plea taken by leaned counsel for the appellant orally before the Court that on the fateful day he had gone in a birthday function alongwith his son and he came back in the next morning is in direct conflict with the plea as a ground for bail/present appeal in view of the averments made in paragraph 13 of the affidavit submitted by accused appellant himself. No explanation regarding the fact that as to why and how her wife died/murdered has been offered by the appellant and on the basis of other evidence on record collected by the Investigating Officer and the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out a case for bail. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The impugned order do not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the appeal is refused. The criminal appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Uday Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 917 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 494, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandaa, District Agra.

3. F.I.R. lodged by the informant consists of the allegations that the deceased Jyoti Singh, sister of the informant, had performed love marriage with the appellant in the year 2019 and was living with him in a separate house. She belonged to SC/ST community whereas the appellant is Jat by caste. The deceased have taken divorce from her earlier husband and an amount of Rs. 10 lacs and jewellries, which she had got in the divorce petition, were grabbed by the appellant after delivery of a son. The accused appellant started torturing and harassing the deceased for dowry and caused cruelty to her to take money from her parental house. Subsequently she came to know about the marital status of the appellant that he was already having two daughters. Whenever she asked for some money for household expenditure, she was beaten by shoes and iron rod by the accused appellant and also hurled abuses by caste related remarks. On 20.12.2022 at about 5.00 P.M. when the mother of the informant contacted the deceased on mobile phone, her mobile phone was found switched off. Thereafter the informant and his mother went to the house of the appellant where his sister was lying dead on the bed in the house and after committing the murder of his sister, the accused appellant ran away alongwith his son. Named F.I.R. was lodged on 21.12.2022. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, at the time of death of the deceased, the appellant was not present in his house and in fact he had gone to attend a birthday function out of the village alongwith his son and the deceased was all alone in his house. It is next submitted that mother of the deceased works in police department and since the appellant had married her daughter, she was annoyed with him and kept animosity also. It is also submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and no incriminating evidence was received from the accused. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report, doctor has found cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem smothering and no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer did not investigate the matter in proper manner and submitted charge sheet in haste and arbitrary manner. It is also submitted that the case depends upon the circumstantial evidence but no circumstance has been proved against the accused appellant. It is next submitted that the trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is also submitted that the appellant has no previous criminal history to his credit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2022. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the accused appellant was husband of the deceased and since it was a love marriage, no question of giving any dowry arise. Since the death of the deceased caused in the house of the accused appellant who was husband of the deceased, he was all alone responsible for death of the deceased and he had to explain as to how and why the murder of his wife was committed. It is next submitted that it is clear case of dowry death and legal presumptions undoubtedly arise against the accused appellant. It is also submitted the medical evidence and inquest report corroborate the prosecution version. It is next submitted that trial has started and PW-1 informant and PW-2 mother of the deceased had corroborated the prosecution version in their testimony recorded before the court. On the said grounds, a request for dismissal of the present appeal has been made by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and particularly the plea taken by leaned counsel for the appellant orally before the Court that on the fateful day he had gone in a birthday function alongwith his son and he came back in the next morning is in direct conflict with the plea as a ground for bail/present appeal in view of the averments made in paragraph 13 of the affidavit submitted by accused appellant himself. No explanation regarding the fact that as to why and how her wife died/murdered has been offered by the appellant and on the basis of other evidence on record collected by the Investigating Officer and the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out a case for bail. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The impugned order do not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the appeal is refused. The criminal appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad