High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, 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- Prabhat, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0128 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act., Police Station Nakud, District Saharanpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 28.04.2024 by Rajbir Singh against the applicant and 02 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Himani was solemnized with Prabhat (the applicant) on 09.03.2023. After marriage the accused persons used to torture & trouble her for dowry. There was demand of a car, jewellery of gold and cash as dowry by the accused persons. The informant went to her in-laws house and consoled them but they showed rude behavior and even abused him. On 26.04.2024 he received a phone call of Renuka her nand informing that his daughter has died. He along with his relatives went to the village and till then the accused persons have cremated her daughter's body. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is not involved in the matter. It is submitted that the allegations as levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons are general and omnibus in nature. While placing paragraph Annexure-3 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was brought to Pande Multispeciality Hospital as an Indoor Patient on 26.04.2024 as a case of suspected poisoning where she was under treatment and from there she was referred to another hospital.Thus it shows that the applicant and his family members had immediately after her consuming poison taken her to the hospital for immediate medical attentions and treatment. It is submitted that subsequently the deceased died and she was cremated in the presence of her family members but the Investigating Officer has intentionally not interrogated the relevant persons in the matter which would go to show that her family members were present at the time of cremation. It is submitted that co-accused Smt. Poonam the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38794 of 2024, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted and trial in the matter has started in which the statement of Rajbir Singh the first informant has been recorded as P.W.-1 who did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, the copy of the said statement has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit. It is submitted that Smt. Babli the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.-2 who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Further Smt. Renu the chachi of the deceased was examined as P.W.-3 who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel submits that in the charge-sheet 21 persons are cited as witnesses and only three witnesses have been examined and as such the trial will take time. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 29.05.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that in the present matter the deceased was taken to the hospital from where she was referred to higher centre but the applicant and his family members did not take her to another hospital for the reasons best known to them, then she died and was cremated and as such the cause of death could not be conclusively known since postmortem of the deceased was not performed. It is submitted that in so far as Smt. Poonam who has been granted bail is concerned, she is the mother-in-law of the deceased and since the applicant is the husband of the deceased his case is distinguishable with that of the said co- accused. It is submitted that the burden of the applicant regarding the deceased dying in her matrimonial house has not been discharged at all by the applicant in the present bail application. It is submitted that in so far as discharge of burden by the applicant is concerned, paragraph 15 of the affidavit although has been averred but the same is totally vague and cannot be considered.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The deceased was taken to the hospital from where she was referred to higher centre but from there, there is no disclosure of documents to show where the applicant and his family members took her. Subsequently she died and was even cremated. The body was not even subjected to postmortem examination and as such the cause of death could not be ascertained. The trial in the matter is going on in which three witnesses have been examined. The appreciation of the said three witnesses is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. The discharge of burden by the applicant in paragraph 15 does not transpire confidence at all. Co-accused who has been granted bail is the mother-in-law of the deceased and as such the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of the said co- accused. The records show that three witnesses have been examined in the trial which goes to show that trial is going on diligently. No ground for bail is made out.

8. 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.

9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, 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- Prabhat, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0128 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act., Police Station Nakud, District Saharanpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 28.04.2024 by Rajbir Singh against the applicant and 02 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Himani was solemnized with Prabhat (the applicant) on 09.03.2023. After marriage the accused persons used to torture & trouble her for dowry. There was demand of a car, jewellery of gold and cash as dowry by the accused persons. The informant went to her in-laws house and consoled them but they showed rude behavior and even abused him. On 26.04.2024 he received a phone call of Renuka her nand informing that his daughter has died. He along with his relatives went to the village and till then the accused persons have cremated her daughter's body. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is not involved in the matter. It is submitted that the allegations as levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons are general and omnibus in nature. While placing paragraph Annexure-3 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was brought to Pande Multispeciality Hospital as an Indoor Patient on 26.04.2024 as a case of suspected poisoning where she was under treatment and from there she was referred to another hospital.Thus it shows that the applicant and his family members had immediately after her consuming poison taken her to the hospital for immediate medical attentions and treatment. It is submitted that subsequently the deceased died and she was cremated in the presence of her family members but the Investigating Officer has intentionally not interrogated the relevant persons in the matter which would go to show that her family members were present at the time of cremation. It is submitted that co-accused Smt. Poonam the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38794 of 2024, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted and trial in the matter has started in which the statement of Rajbir Singh the first informant has been recorded as P.W.-1 who did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, the copy of the said statement has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit. It is submitted that Smt. Babli the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.-2 who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Further Smt. Renu the chachi of the deceased was examined as P.W.-3 who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel submits that in the charge-sheet 21 persons are cited as witnesses and only three witnesses have been examined and as such the trial will take time. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 29.05.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that in the present matter the deceased was taken to the hospital from where she was referred to higher centre but the applicant and his family members did not take her to another hospital for the reasons best known to them, then she died and was cremated and as such the cause of death could not be conclusively known since postmortem of the deceased was not performed. It is submitted that in so far as Smt. Poonam who has been granted bail is concerned, she is the mother-in-law of the deceased and since the applicant is the husband of the deceased his case is distinguishable with that of the said co- accused. It is submitted that the burden of the applicant regarding the deceased dying in her matrimonial house has not been discharged at all by the applicant in the present bail application. It is submitted that in so far as discharge of burden by the applicant is concerned, paragraph 15 of the affidavit although has been averred but the same is totally vague and cannot be considered.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The deceased was taken to the hospital from where she was referred to higher centre but from there, there is no disclosure of documents to show where the applicant and his family members took her. Subsequently she died and was even cremated. The body was not even subjected to postmortem examination and as such the cause of death could not be ascertained. The trial in the matter is going on in which three witnesses have been examined. The appreciation of the said three witnesses is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. The discharge of burden by the applicant in paragraph 15 does not transpire confidence at all. Co-accused who has been granted bail is the mother-in-law of the deceased and as such the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of the said co- accused. The records show that three witnesses have been examined in the trial which goes to show that trial is going on diligently. No ground for bail is made out.

8. 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.

9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad