High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76643 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12809 of 2025 Applicant :- Nilmadi Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Janardan Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Nilmadi Maurya, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.0004 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the State states that he has received instructions in the matter for which he had prayed and was granted time on 21.4.2025. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 5.1.2025 by Ram Dularey Maurya against the applicant and Smt. Jadavati Maurya alleging therein that his daughter Priyanka Maurya was married to the applicant in the year 2019 who all of a sudden died on 3.1.2025/4.1.2025 at about 12.42 a.m. He received an information from his son-in-law Nilmadi Maurya that his daughter is serious and he should come immediately subsequent to which again a phone call came to him to reach early on which he somehow made arrangements for his travel and then a phone call again came that the doctors have referred her to Global Hospital and they are taking her to Rama Trauma Centre. He asked Nilmadi as to why doctors are referring her, he stated that the matter is of consumption of poison. When they reached Rama Hospital, his daughter was found in the ambulance in a dead condition. Appropriate action be taken and investigation be done regarding her cause of death. He suspects that his daughter was being tortured. 6 The postmortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted in which the doctor did not find any ante-mortem injury and hence the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera was examined which was found to contain Aluminum Phosphide poison. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the FIR there is no reference of any dowry being demanded or the deceased being tortured for want of dowry. It is further argued that subsequently after two days on 7.1.2025, the first informant gave an application to the police which was transcribed as his statement under Section 180 BNSS in which for the first time, he states that there has been a demand of a Swift car as dowry by the accused persons, the same is an afterthought and goes to show that there had been consultation and advice of others and outsiders. The delay in moving the said application and disclosing the fact regarding demand of dowry is unexplained. It is further submitted that initially the informant had given an information to the police stating that his daughter has died as she was unwell and thus postmortem was conducted, the same was recorded in G.D. It is argued that subsequently a consent letter was drawn of which the first informant and the applicant were signatories in which it was decided by both the parties that the postmortem be conducted and then the body would be taken to Azamgarh after which the cremation would be done. Till the said time, there was no complaint whatsoever regarding demand of dowry. It is argued that the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. While placing para no.32 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that the deceased was having adequate qualification and fulfills eligibility of the teachers but she was preparing for CTET and TET examinations mandatory for obtaining Govt. jobs and due to non-availability of govt. job, she got frustrated and gradually became depressed and took a such step that should not have taken, which put the entire family in trouble. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 8.3.2025. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house and the cause of death was poisoning. There is an allegation of demand of dowry and the version given by the first informant at the initial stage and even in the statement during investigation through his application is a natural version as the FIR would itself go to show that he was three times on phone given different status of the deceased and he had rushed to her. The deceased died within seven years of marriage. The death is unnatural. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the death of the deceased is unnatural in her matrimonial house. The first informant has given a detailed version of the allegation during investigation. It is further submitted that even in the statement of the first informant recorded subsequently which is at page 116-B of the paper book, he has levelled allegation against the applicant. 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. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. In the postmortem report cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. In the viscera report, Aluminum Phosphide poison was found. 11. 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 :- 12.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad