High Court · 2025

2. Personal affidavit of Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Circle Officer (Traffic), District Lalitpur filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

3. The Investigating Officer/Circle Officer Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava is present in Court and he has stated that he had taken the statement of the concerned doctor who had opined that victim had visited her and he had advised her treatment for depression.

4. The personal appearance of the Circle Officer Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava is dispensed with.

5. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

6. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.151 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Madawra, District- Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial.

7. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 23.6.2018, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry, thereby led her to death on 22.11.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is true that FIR is prompt but it is too prompt as far as the offence is concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased was suffering from depression as is admitted by the Investigating Officer/Circle Officer in his compliance affidavit. There is no particular demand of dowry, as such, the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not fulfilled.

10. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2023 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. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but he could not dispute the fact that it is admitted by the Circle Officer in the personal affidavit that he visited the concerned doctor who had told him that deceased was subjected to treatment for depression.

12. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

13. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

14. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

15. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.

16. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

17. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that deceased was suffering from depression as is implied by the personal affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, 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- Jitendra Singh Lodhi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.

21. 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. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Personal affidavit of Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Circle Officer (Traffic), District Lalitpur filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

3. The Investigating Officer/Circle Officer Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava is present in Court and he has stated that he had taken the statement of the concerned doctor who had opined that victim had visited her and he had advised her treatment for depression.

4. The personal appearance of the Circle Officer Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava is dispensed with.

5. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

6. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.151 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Madawra, District- Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial.

7. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 23.6.2018, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry, thereby led her to death on 22.11.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is true that FIR is prompt but it is too prompt as far as the offence is concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased was suffering from depression as is admitted by the Investigating Officer/Circle Officer in his compliance affidavit. There is no particular demand of dowry, as such, the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not fulfilled.

10. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2023 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. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but he could not dispute the fact that it is admitted by the Circle Officer in the personal affidavit that he visited the concerned doctor who had told him that deceased was subjected to treatment for depression.

12. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

13. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

14. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

15. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.

16. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

17. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that deceased was suffering from depression as is implied by the personal affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, 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- Jitendra Singh Lodhi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.

21. 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. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad