High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Sarve Nazir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Pavan Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 46 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 01.2.2024 by Shiv Kumar against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Sheetal @ Soni was solemnized with Pavan Kumar the applicant on 23.06.2023. In the marriage he had spent Rs. 15 lakh as per his status but the accused persons were not happy with it and there was a demand of additional dowry of a Swift Dezire car for which they used to trouble his daughter. The accused persons were counselled many times but they did not agree to it and used to trouble his daughter. He called his daughter at his home. On 28.01.2024 he again dropped her to her in-laws. On 29.01.2024 he received an information that his daughter is ill and she is admitted in the hospital. When he reached the hospital and found his daughter dead. Report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the resent case. It is submitted that the deceased was admitted in the hospital by her in-laws as they suspected that she consumed poison. It is submitted that the deceased died while being admitted in the hospital on 29.01.2024. It is submitted that in the postmortem examination report no antemortem injury was seen and the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved in which after examination organo chloro insecticide poison was found. It is submitted that the trial in the matter has started in which the first informant Shiv Kumar has been examined as PW-1 who did not support the prosecution version and has been declared hostile, copy of the statement is annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that looking to the said fact the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 4 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.04.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments regarding the factual aspect of the matter. It is submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within six months of her marriage. The death is unnatural. It is submitted that as such the bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the deceased was admitted in the hospital by her in-laws due to consumption of poison by her. Subsequently, she died while being admitted in the hospital. No bodily injury was found in the postmortem examination and the viscera was preserved since the cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera report shows the presence of organo chloro insecticide poison. The trial in the matter has started in which the first informant/Shiv Kumar was examined as PW-1 who did not support the prosecution version and has been declared hostile.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant Pavan Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Sarve Nazir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Pavan Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 46 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 01.2.2024 by Shiv Kumar against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Sheetal @ Soni was solemnized with Pavan Kumar the applicant on 23.06.2023. In the marriage he had spent Rs. 15 lakh as per his status but the accused persons were not happy with it and there was a demand of additional dowry of a Swift Dezire car for which they used to trouble his daughter. The accused persons were counselled many times but they did not agree to it and used to trouble his daughter. He called his daughter at his home. On 28.01.2024 he again dropped her to her in-laws. On 29.01.2024 he received an information that his daughter is ill and she is admitted in the hospital. When he reached the hospital and found his daughter dead. Report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the resent case. It is submitted that the deceased was admitted in the hospital by her in-laws as they suspected that she consumed poison. It is submitted that the deceased died while being admitted in the hospital on 29.01.2024. It is submitted that in the postmortem examination report no antemortem injury was seen and the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved in which after examination organo chloro insecticide poison was found. It is submitted that the trial in the matter has started in which the first informant Shiv Kumar has been examined as PW-1 who did not support the prosecution version and has been declared hostile, copy of the statement is annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that looking to the said fact the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 4 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.04.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments regarding the factual aspect of the matter. It is submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within six months of her marriage. The death is unnatural. It is submitted that as such the bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the deceased was admitted in the hospital by her in-laws due to consumption of poison by her. Subsequently, she died while being admitted in the hospital. No bodily injury was found in the postmortem examination and the viscera was preserved since the cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera report shows the presence of organo chloro insecticide poison. The trial in the matter has started in which the first informant/Shiv Kumar was examined as PW-1 who did not support the prosecution version and has been declared hostile.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant Pavan Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad