In Gurcharan Singh v. State

3. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for applicant, Dr. Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 356 of 2023, under Sections 323, 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 21.02.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of a care as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 25.05.2023 at about 4:00 p.m.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is true that FIR is prompt but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant had appeared in an entrance examination and was present at the examination room from 11:00 AM to 02:00 PM, as such, there is no possibility of the applicant being present at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The deceased did not want to marry the applicant but the marriage was solemnized under duress by her family members. It is also pointed out that the deceased was overheard by her brother-in-law while having conversation with her sister, wherein she disclosed her relationship with one Rahul.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that even the inquest report and post-mortem report indicate that her bangles were intact, as such, there was no use of any force by anybody whatsoever, therefore, it is a clear cut case of suicide which has been given the colour of dowry death.

8. It is further argued that marriage was solemnized on 21.02.2023 and the incident was of 21.05.2023 and the two dates are too proximate to each other, as such, there is no possibility of demand of dowry during the intervening period of three months.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that mother-in-law and father- in-law have been enlarged on bail and brother-in-law has been exonerated by the police, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified.

10. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 31.07.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that conduct of the applicant and other family members is to be seen in the instant case and none of them were present at the time of inquest proceedings and the post mortem report and they were also not present at the time of cremation of the deceased person, as such, the conduct of the applicant and his family members is to be taken into consideration in light of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

12. This Court had called for a status report from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 25.07.2025 received from the trial court concerned, two witnesses have been examined and last opportunity had been given to the defence counsel to cross-examine P.W.1.

13. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974, the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that two witnesses have been examined and deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his conduct of being absent at the time of inquest report and the post mortem report coupled with the fact that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

15. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

16. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

17. 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 :- 19.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for applicant, Dr. Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 356 of 2023, under Sections 323, 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 21.02.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of a care as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 25.05.2023 at about 4:00 p.m.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is true that FIR is prompt but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant had appeared in an entrance examination and was present at the examination room from 11:00 AM to 02:00 PM, as such, there is no possibility of the applicant being present at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The deceased did not want to marry the applicant but the marriage was solemnized under duress by her family members. It is also pointed out that the deceased was overheard by her brother-in-law while having conversation with her sister, wherein she disclosed her relationship with one Rahul.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that even the inquest report and post-mortem report indicate that her bangles were intact, as such, there was no use of any force by anybody whatsoever, therefore, it is a clear cut case of suicide which has been given the colour of dowry death.

8. It is further argued that marriage was solemnized on 21.02.2023 and the incident was of 21.05.2023 and the two dates are too proximate to each other, as such, there is no possibility of demand of dowry during the intervening period of three months.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that mother-in-law and father- in-law have been enlarged on bail and brother-in-law has been exonerated by the police, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified.

10. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 31.07.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that conduct of the applicant and other family members is to be seen in the instant case and none of them were present at the time of inquest proceedings and the post mortem report and they were also not present at the time of cremation of the deceased person, as such, the conduct of the applicant and his family members is to be taken into consideration in light of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

12. This Court had called for a status report from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 25.07.2025 received from the trial court concerned, two witnesses have been examined and last opportunity had been given to the defence counsel to cross-examine P.W.1.

13. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974, the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that two witnesses have been examined and deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his conduct of being absent at the time of inquest report and the post mortem report coupled with the fact that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

15. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

16. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

17. 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 :- 19.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad