High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) BNS and Section 4/25 (1-B)b Arms Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he alongwith his family members committed her murder but entire allegations, levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged by the applicant himself against unknown persons and as per the FIR when applicant was going alongwith his wife then on the way some unknown miscreants made assault upon them and committed loot of Rs. Forty-four thousand five hundred and they committed the murder of his wife.

5. He further submitted that even in the incident applicant also sustained injuries but during investigation on the basis of application moved by Bua of the deceased applicant has been made accused in the present matter without any evidence.

6. He further submitted that from the G.D. entry dated 27.8.2024, 11:53 hours it reflects when applicant arrived at the police station for lodgement of the FIR of the present case then he was also accompanied by the father of the deceased and even Bua of the deceased namely Seema Shaheen, who subsequently roped the applicant in the present matter and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that however, from the inquest report it reflects that the same was conducted on the information given by Police Response Vehicle, (in short 'PRV') but in that inquest, applicant is also one of the inquest witness and actually after the incident immediately police arrived at spot and thereafter on the information given by police personnel, the inquest was conducted and after the inquest, applicant could lodge the FIR of the present case.

8. He further submitted that even there is no eye witness account which can suggest that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.8.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased however earlier he lodged FIR of the present case against unknown person but from the inquest report it reflects, the same was not conducted on the information given by the applicant and it was conducted on the information given by the PRV and this shows that immediately after the incident applicant neither informed the police nor he immediately lodged the FIR of the present case and subsequently, after thought he at 11:53 a.m. arrived at police station and thereafter on 12:15 hours lodged the FIR of the present case and this fact casts serious doubt upon the conduct of the applicant and as admittedly applicant was alongwith deceased at the time of incident, therefore, it can fairly be presumed that he after committing the murder of his wife lodged false FIR of the present case and therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, he should not be released on bail.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he committed the murder of his wife but from the record, it reflects that applicant himself is the informant of the case and he lodged, the FIR of the present case against unknown person and according to him when he was going alongwith his wife then on the way some unknown miscreants made assault upon them and due to the assault made by them, he himself sustained injuries and unfortunately, his wife died and from the FIR it also reflects that as per the applicant unknown miscreants also committed loot of Rs. Forty-four thousand five hundred.

13. Further, however, it reflects that after lodgement of the FIR in the evening Bua of the deceased moved an application against the applicant and stated that actually applicant committed the murder of his wife as he used to torture her but there is G.D. entry on record dated 27.8.2024 at 11:53 hours and from its perusal, it reflects, when applicant arrived at police station for lodgement of the FIR then he was not only accompanied by father of the deceased but was also accompanied by Bua of the deceased, Seema Shaheen, who subsequently moved application against applicant. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently after the lodgement of the FIR, Bua moved a false application against the applicant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

14. Further, however, from perusal of the inquest report, it reflects that it was conducted on the information given by PRV but considering the fact that applicant is one of the inquest witness in the inquest report, in view of this Court, no adverse inference can be drawn at this stage, against the applicant and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after the incident, police arrived at spot and thereafter, information was given by PRV, cannot be ruled out.

15. Further, even there is no eye witness account and it reflects that merely on the basis of suspicion that applicant used to torture the deceased, it appears he has been made accused in the present matter.

16. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 28.8.2024 i.e. for last more than 8 months.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant-Sartaj Khan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. 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 :- 27.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) BNS and Section 4/25 (1-B)b Arms Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he alongwith his family members committed her murder but entire allegations, levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged by the applicant himself against unknown persons and as per the FIR when applicant was going alongwith his wife then on the way some unknown miscreants made assault upon them and committed loot of Rs. Forty-four thousand five hundred and they committed the murder of his wife.

5. He further submitted that even in the incident applicant also sustained injuries but during investigation on the basis of application moved by Bua of the deceased applicant has been made accused in the present matter without any evidence.

6. He further submitted that from the G.D. entry dated 27.8.2024, 11:53 hours it reflects when applicant arrived at the police station for lodgement of the FIR of the present case then he was also accompanied by the father of the deceased and even Bua of the deceased namely Seema Shaheen, who subsequently roped the applicant in the present matter and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that however, from the inquest report it reflects that the same was conducted on the information given by Police Response Vehicle, (in short 'PRV') but in that inquest, applicant is also one of the inquest witness and actually after the incident immediately police arrived at spot and thereafter on the information given by police personnel, the inquest was conducted and after the inquest, applicant could lodge the FIR of the present case.

8. He further submitted that even there is no eye witness account which can suggest that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.8.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased however earlier he lodged FIR of the present case against unknown person but from the inquest report it reflects, the same was not conducted on the information given by the applicant and it was conducted on the information given by the PRV and this shows that immediately after the incident applicant neither informed the police nor he immediately lodged the FIR of the present case and subsequently, after thought he at 11:53 a.m. arrived at police station and thereafter on 12:15 hours lodged the FIR of the present case and this fact casts serious doubt upon the conduct of the applicant and as admittedly applicant was alongwith deceased at the time of incident, therefore, it can fairly be presumed that he after committing the murder of his wife lodged false FIR of the present case and therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, he should not be released on bail.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he committed the murder of his wife but from the record, it reflects that applicant himself is the informant of the case and he lodged, the FIR of the present case against unknown person and according to him when he was going alongwith his wife then on the way some unknown miscreants made assault upon them and due to the assault made by them, he himself sustained injuries and unfortunately, his wife died and from the FIR it also reflects that as per the applicant unknown miscreants also committed loot of Rs. Forty-four thousand five hundred.

13. Further, however, it reflects that after lodgement of the FIR in the evening Bua of the deceased moved an application against the applicant and stated that actually applicant committed the murder of his wife as he used to torture her but there is G.D. entry on record dated 27.8.2024 at 11:53 hours and from its perusal, it reflects, when applicant arrived at police station for lodgement of the FIR then he was not only accompanied by father of the deceased but was also accompanied by Bua of the deceased, Seema Shaheen, who subsequently moved application against applicant. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently after the lodgement of the FIR, Bua moved a false application against the applicant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

14. Further, however, from perusal of the inquest report, it reflects that it was conducted on the information given by PRV but considering the fact that applicant is one of the inquest witness in the inquest report, in view of this Court, no adverse inference can be drawn at this stage, against the applicant and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after the incident, police arrived at spot and thereafter, information was given by PRV, cannot be ruled out.

15. Further, even there is no eye witness account and it reflects that merely on the basis of suspicion that applicant used to torture the deceased, it appears he has been made accused in the present matter.

16. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 28.8.2024 i.e. for last more than 8 months.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant-Sartaj Khan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. 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 :- 27.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad