Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15622 of 2025 Mohd Umar Alias Lalla State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Birendra Prasad Tiwari, Jai Shanker Malviya, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Mohd. Jamshed Khan : Ashvani Tripathi, G.A. AND CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 412 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Rehana Alias Rihana State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Birendra Prasad Tiwari, Jai Shanker Malviya, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Mohd. Jamshed Khan : Ashvani Tripathi, G.A. Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Since both the bail applications arise out of the same case crime, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard Sri Jai Shanker Malviya, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akash Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashvani Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.512 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 238 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 2 BAIL No. 15622 of 2025 4. The marriage of sister of the informant Seema Parveen was solemnized with the son of the applicants as per Muslim Rites on 7.2.2024 and enough pleasantries and gifts were exchanged at that time. The applicants and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty as they were not satisfied with the said gifts and dowry given in the marriage, as such, had committed the murder of sister of the informant on 12.11.2024 by strangulating her. 5. In order to conceal the dead body of the deceased person, the applicants and other family members are stated to have taken the dead body in a car no. UP21 BJ 3597 which was seen by the neighbour Chaman w/o Mohd. Alam and she told to her sister-in-law (Jethani) Nasreen. The said lady Nasreen w/o Najir Hussain is stated to have called from her mobile no.9759741667 to the mobile no.9557041311 of the brother of the deceased person and told about the said incident. 6. The real brothers of the deceased person Aftab Alam, Mohd. Shoeb, Mohd. Shaan and their cousin Rehan reached Mohalla Lal Masjid Pipalsana, Moradabad and stopped the said car in front of the house of applicants and found the dead body of Seema Parveen lying on the middle seat of said Ertiga car no. UP21 BJ 3597, as such, the FIR was instituted at the police station on 12.11.2024 at 10:57 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 7. The applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than two hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and not strangulation, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 9. The truth is that applicants and their son were trying to rush the deceased to hospital for treatment in the said car as she had committed suicide and her dead body was retrieved suspended to the ceiling in the room. 10. The other three injuries sustained by the deceased person are minor injuries as they were caused to the deceased person at the time of retrieving 3 BAIL No. 15622 of 2025 her body from the ceiling of the room. 11. It was a love marriage between the deceased and the son of applicants and no gifts or pleasantries or dowry were given at the time of marriage, as such, there was no question of the applicants demanding any dowry whatsoever. There is no allegation of any demand of dowry in the FIR itself. As such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. 12. It is a clear cut case of suicide committed by the deceased person. The deceased had committed suicide in her own room, which stands fortified by the site-plan, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. 13. The fact that no gift or dowry was given at the time of marriage stands fortified by an affidavit filed by both the parties and verified by two more witnesses, which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed with bail application. 14. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicants. The applicants, who happen to be father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person, are languishing in jail since 10.12.2024 and 14.11.2024, respectively, and they are ready to cooperate with trial. The applicants being aged persons about 60 years old and 55 years old are entitled for bail. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY: 15. Per contra, the bail application has been opposed on the ground that there were three injuries in addition to the ligature mark on the neck, which are as follows: (i) contusion of size 04 cm x 03 cm present below right eye. (ii) contusion of size 1.5 cm x 01 cm present on mid of right side mandible. (iii) abrasion of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on dorsum of right forearm, 02 cm below elbow joint. 16. It is argued that the said injuries indicate that the deceased person has been subjected to trauma. None of the family members of the applicants were present at the time of inquest proceedings, which corroborates the 4 BAIL No. 15622 of 2025 prosecution story as the dead body was found from the middle seat of said Ertiga car no. UP21 BJ 3597. As such, the applicants are not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 17. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 27.8.2025, statement of PW- 1/Aftab Alam has been recorded on 26.8.2025. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that only one witness has been examined to date and the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and the other three injuries sustained by the deceased person being minor in nature coupled with the fact that applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person and there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Mohd Umar Alias Lalla and Smt. Rehana Alias Rihana, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 8, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad