High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139285 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12143 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashish Trivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Arya,Saurabh Chaturvedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Mishra,Sunil Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aman Arya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 284 of 2021, under Sections 498-A & 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Naubasta, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed in C.M.B.A No. 51396 of 2021 and the following order has been passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant in connection with Case Crime No.284 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naubasta, district Kanpur Nagar. The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant Aditya Awasthi against the present accused and others about the death of his sister in unnatural circumstances. She was married on 26.11.2015 with the present accused Ashish Trivedi and it was alleged in the FIR that after the marriage, the present accused and his family members were asking for additional dowry and they were harassing the deceased and the deceased was badly treated in connection with the demand of the additional dowry. It was alleged in the FIR that the present accused and his family members have killed the deceased. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present accused had carried the deceased to hospital and had informed the family members of the deceased about the incident He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.04.2021, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. Learned counsel for the complainant as well learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail plea and they have submitted that the deceased had died during seven years of her marriage and she was strangulated. It is further submitted that she had died in the house of the applicant and burden lies on the applicant and his family members. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected." 5. As a new ground, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is entitled for bail as he is languishing in jail since 17.04.2021, as such, the period of incarceration is more than four years. It is true that the cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation but the hyoid bone was found intact, as such, the opinion framed by the doctor was false. It is a clear cut case of suicide by hanging. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant's mother has expired and his father has to take care of the offspring born out of the wedlock. One contusion was observed by the doctor on the knee of the victim which has been caused when her dead body was being taken down from the ceiling. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.04.2021, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant's father is a retired police personnel. The complicity of the applicant stands fortified from the fact that he had run away from the hospital when the informant and other family members reached there, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 25.07.2025. As per the said report, eight witnesses have been examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end. 9. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. 10. The Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, 2025 INSC 974, has categorically reinforced that the bail orders engrave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation coupled by the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date:- 14.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad