State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Omar Zamin, Sri Afroz Ahmad and Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0056 of 2025, under Sections 85, 89, 115(2), 352, 109(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY :-

4. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with informant(victim) as a registered court marriage on 04.06.2023. Subsequently, a reception/feast was organized for the said marriage on

07.02.2024. It is stated in the FIR that about Rs.60 lacs were spent by the parents of the victim in the said marriage. The applicant is even stated to have taken away Rs.15 lacs from the victim on the pretext that he shall arrange visa for Canada for both of them.

5. The applicant is even stated to have got Rs.3 lacs top up loan issued in favour of the victim and the said money was taken away by the applicant along with its papers after getting her signatures on two cheques. The 2 BAIL No. 19433 of 2025 applicant is even stated to have got issued I20 sports car on 05.08.2024 from the salary of the informant. Subsequently, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.35 lacs as dowry. Even questions of infidelity were raised against her.

6. Subsequently, the applicant and his family members took her to Saudi Arabia and thereby subjected her to cruelty and assaulted her whereby police of Saudi Arabia reached there but due to language problem, could not understand the veracity of the statements made therein and therefore, did not take any action against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant left the victim on her own in Saudi Arabia and subsequently, the victim somehow, returned to India and reached to her in-laws' house at Meenakshipuram, Meerut on 25.03.2025. The applicant and other family members are stated to have refused her entry in their house, as such the FIR was instituted by the victim on 28.03.2025. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :-

7. 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. The FIR is delayed and there is no date and time of the offence mentioned to have been committed in Saudi Arabia. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding any offence being committed therein.

8. Learned counsel has next stated that the offence, if any, has been committed in Saudi Arabia, the cause of action would arise there only and the FIR has been instituted herein. Later on, another allegation has come up of having forced the victim to cruelty and thereby led her pregnancy terminated.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said fact stands refuted from the insurance papers. The said papers have been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed with the bail application whereby the victim herself has signed the documents for insurance purposes. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Preeti Pahwa regarding treatment of victim states "the patient Mrs. Vaishali, 29 years/F with early pregnancy was under my care and she underwent suction and evacuation on 3 BAIL No. 19433 of 2025

17.10.2023 in view of incomplete abortion which was spontaneous early pregnancy loss. There is no history of any medicine intake which would have caused the miscarriage." It implies that the abortion procedure was undertaken out of free will and consent of the victim. There is no sign of use of any force or trauma by the applicant.

10. Learned counsel has place reliance on the medical report issued by the said doctor whereby she has stated in the said diagnosis, part on the left side of certificate that it is a case of contraception failure, desires termination of pregnancy, as such it is a not a case of any kind of use of force by the applicant. It is also stated that the said abortion is stated to have occurred between the actual date of registration of marriage and the said reception programme organized on 07.02.2024.

11. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the injury report of the injured person whereby the injuries sustained as observed by the Investigating Officer were about one week to two months old, as such exact duration cannot be ascertained. The said injury can be manufactured or self-inflicted, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication.

12. Learned counsel has next submitted that wife of the paramour of the victim had instituted the FIR No.26 of 2023 at Police Station-Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh whereby there is mentioning of name of the victim herein which indicates that the victim was having some kind of relationship with the husband of the informant of FIR No.26 of 2023 instituted at Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE :-

14. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim has nothing to do with the said allegation as made in the FIR No.26 of 2023, as such the allegations made against the character of the 4 BAIL No. 19433 of 2025 victim are false. The said allegations tantamount to character assassination which cannot be permitted by law.

15. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the said abortion was due to the injuries sustained as a result of torture by the applicant only, as such being husband and the main perpetrator of the crime, applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION :-

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR that too about three days from the date when the victim reached her in-laws' house and also taking into account the inconsistencies in the injury report, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Paramvir Singh, who involved 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

19. 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 18, 2025 Sumit S (Krishan Pahal,J.) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Omar Zamin, Sri Afroz Ahmad and Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0056 of 2025, under Sections 85, 89, 115(2), 352, 109(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY :-

4. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with informant(victim) as a registered court marriage on 04.06.2023. Subsequently, a reception/feast was organized for the said marriage on

07.02.2024. It is stated in the FIR that about Rs.60 lacs were spent by the parents of the victim in the said marriage. The applicant is even stated to have taken away Rs.15 lacs from the victim on the pretext that he shall arrange visa for Canada for both of them.

5. The applicant is even stated to have got Rs.3 lacs top up loan issued in favour of the victim and the said money was taken away by the applicant along with its papers after getting her signatures on two cheques. The 2 BAIL No. 19433 of 2025 applicant is even stated to have got issued I20 sports car on 05.08.2024 from the salary of the informant. Subsequently, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.35 lacs as dowry. Even questions of infidelity were raised against her.

6. Subsequently, the applicant and his family members took her to Saudi Arabia and thereby subjected her to cruelty and assaulted her whereby police of Saudi Arabia reached there but due to language problem, could not understand the veracity of the statements made therein and therefore, did not take any action against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant left the victim on her own in Saudi Arabia and subsequently, the victim somehow, returned to India and reached to her in-laws' house at Meenakshipuram, Meerut on 25.03.2025. The applicant and other family members are stated to have refused her entry in their house, as such the FIR was instituted by the victim on 28.03.2025. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :-

7. 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. The FIR is delayed and there is no date and time of the offence mentioned to have been committed in Saudi Arabia. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding any offence being committed therein.

8. Learned counsel has next stated that the offence, if any, has been committed in Saudi Arabia, the cause of action would arise there only and the FIR has been instituted herein. Later on, another allegation has come up of having forced the victim to cruelty and thereby led her pregnancy terminated.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said fact stands refuted from the insurance papers. The said papers have been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed with the bail application whereby the victim herself has signed the documents for insurance purposes. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Preeti Pahwa regarding treatment of victim states "the patient Mrs. Vaishali, 29 years/F with early pregnancy was under my care and she underwent suction and evacuation on 3 BAIL No. 19433 of 2025

17.10.2023 in view of incomplete abortion which was spontaneous early pregnancy loss. There is no history of any medicine intake which would have caused the miscarriage." It implies that the abortion procedure was undertaken out of free will and consent of the victim. There is no sign of use of any force or trauma by the applicant.

10. Learned counsel has place reliance on the medical report issued by the said doctor whereby she has stated in the said diagnosis, part on the left side of certificate that it is a case of contraception failure, desires termination of pregnancy, as such it is a not a case of any kind of use of force by the applicant. It is also stated that the said abortion is stated to have occurred between the actual date of registration of marriage and the said reception programme organized on 07.02.2024.

11. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the injury report of the injured person whereby the injuries sustained as observed by the Investigating Officer were about one week to two months old, as such exact duration cannot be ascertained. The said injury can be manufactured or self-inflicted, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication.

12. Learned counsel has next submitted that wife of the paramour of the victim had instituted the FIR No.26 of 2023 at Police Station-Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh whereby there is mentioning of name of the victim herein which indicates that the victim was having some kind of relationship with the husband of the informant of FIR No.26 of 2023 instituted at Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE :-

14. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim has nothing to do with the said allegation as made in the FIR No.26 of 2023, as such the allegations made against the character of the 4 BAIL No. 19433 of 2025 victim are false. The said allegations tantamount to character assassination which cannot be permitted by law.

15. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the said abortion was due to the injuries sustained as a result of torture by the applicant only, as such being husband and the main perpetrator of the crime, applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION :-

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR that too about three days from the date when the victim reached her in-laws' house and also taking into account the inconsistencies in the injury report, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Paramvir Singh, who involved 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

19. 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 18, 2025 Sumit S (Krishan Pahal,J.) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad