State of U.P v. Party
Case Details
appearing on behalf of the complainant. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2024, under Sections 118(1), 80(2), 85 B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant Khushhal Dev Pandey, who is father of the deceased got a first information report lodged on 03.11.2024 against Pradeep Mishra, Ambika Prasad Mishra, Heerawati Devi, Vimlesh Mishra, Preeti Mishra and Akansha Mishra, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased respectively stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter-Akansha was solemnized with the applicant about six years back, but after marriage there was consistent demand of Rs. 7,00,000/- and a motorcycle from the side of the accused persons. On 02.11.2024 at about 4:00 A.M. when his daughter was sleeping in her room the accused persons set her ablaze by pouring petrol on her, whereby she received burn injuries. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is 2 BAIL No. 21469 of 2025 that after the incident, which took place in the early morning of
02.11.2024, deceased was taken to Community Health Centre, Ghorawal, Sonbhadra by the applicant and after primary treatment she was referred to District Hospital for better treatment, then she was admitted in Lorhi Hospital (District Hospital Sonbhadra). Thereafter she was referred for BHU, but she could not be admitted there, therefore, she was taken to Heritage Hasty Metro Dev Hospital at Varanasi. Lastly she was admitted in ARC Plus Hospital, Chitaipur, Varanasi on 02.11.2024 itself, where her treatment started. The information about the said incident was also given to the parents of the deceased as well as to the police, on which police recorded statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. of Akansha and thereafter her dying declaration was also recorded on 19.11.2024, wherein she has made allegation of setting her ablaze against her mother-in-law Heerawati Devi and the role of pouring petrol on her has been attributed to co-accused Ambika Prasad Mishra who is her father-in- law. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in the said incident, the applicant tried his best to save the life of his wife by pouring water on her. It is next argued that from the statement of the mother and father of the deceased also it is very much clear that the applicant was with them through out the treatment of the deceased right from 02.11.2024 to 24.11.2024 and best effort has been made to save the life of the deceased, but she could not survive. It is also pointed out that the applicant has spent about Rs. 15,00,000/- from his pocket in the treatment of his wife, hence the allegation of demand of dowry and involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident are false on the face of record itself. It is next pointed out that after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted on 18.02.2025, and charges have been framed against the applicant on 03.09.2025 but till date, no prosecution witness has been examined before the trial court. It is also pointed out that apart from this case, the applicant has criminal history of one case, in which he is on bail, which has been explained in paragraph No. 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The 3 BAIL No. 21469 of 2025 applicant is languishing in jail since 27.11.2024 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that though specific role of pouring petrol on the deceased and setting her ablaze has been attributed to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, but applicant was also present there, hence possibility of his collusion along with other family members cannot be ruled out. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per dying declaration of the deceased, applicant tried to save her wife by pouring water on her. Other material evidences on record also indicate that best effort has been made by the applicant to save the life of his wife while admitting her in different hospitals as noted above. Post mortem report does not indicate the percentage of burn injury received to the deceased. There is no dispute that the parameters for bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Section 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of co- accused Heerawati Devi and Ambika Prasad Mishra who are mother- 4 BAIL No. 21469 of 2025 in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Pradeep Kumar Mishra, 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: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 17, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
appearing on behalf of the complainant. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2024, under Sections 118(1), 80(2), 85 B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant Khushhal Dev Pandey, who is father of the deceased got a first information report lodged on 03.11.2024 against Pradeep Mishra, Ambika Prasad Mishra, Heerawati Devi, Vimlesh Mishra, Preeti Mishra and Akansha Mishra, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased respectively stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter-Akansha was solemnized with the applicant about six years back, but after marriage there was consistent demand of Rs. 7,00,000/- and a motorcycle from the side of the accused persons. On 02.11.2024 at about 4:00 A.M. when his daughter was sleeping in her room the accused persons set her ablaze by pouring petrol on her, whereby she received burn injuries. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is 2 BAIL No. 21469 of 2025 that after the incident, which took place in the early morning of
02.11.2024, deceased was taken to Community Health Centre, Ghorawal, Sonbhadra by the applicant and after primary treatment she was referred to District Hospital for better treatment, then she was admitted in Lorhi Hospital (District Hospital Sonbhadra). Thereafter she was referred for BHU, but she could not be admitted there, therefore, she was taken to Heritage Hasty Metro Dev Hospital at Varanasi. Lastly she was admitted in ARC Plus Hospital, Chitaipur, Varanasi on 02.11.2024 itself, where her treatment started. The information about the said incident was also given to the parents of the deceased as well as to the police, on which police recorded statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. of Akansha and thereafter her dying declaration was also recorded on 19.11.2024, wherein she has made allegation of setting her ablaze against her mother-in-law Heerawati Devi and the role of pouring petrol on her has been attributed to co-accused Ambika Prasad Mishra who is her father-in- law. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in the said incident, the applicant tried his best to save the life of his wife by pouring water on her. It is next argued that from the statement of the mother and father of the deceased also it is very much clear that the applicant was with them through out the treatment of the deceased right from 02.11.2024 to 24.11.2024 and best effort has been made to save the life of the deceased, but she could not survive. It is also pointed out that the applicant has spent about Rs. 15,00,000/- from his pocket in the treatment of his wife, hence the allegation of demand of dowry and involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident are false on the face of record itself. It is next pointed out that after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted on 18.02.2025, and charges have been framed against the applicant on 03.09.2025 but till date, no prosecution witness has been examined before the trial court. It is also pointed out that apart from this case, the applicant has criminal history of one case, in which he is on bail, which has been explained in paragraph No. 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The 3 BAIL No. 21469 of 2025 applicant is languishing in jail since 27.11.2024 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that though specific role of pouring petrol on the deceased and setting her ablaze has been attributed to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, but applicant was also present there, hence possibility of his collusion along with other family members cannot be ruled out. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per dying declaration of the deceased, applicant tried to save her wife by pouring water on her. Other material evidences on record also indicate that best effort has been made by the applicant to save the life of his wife while admitting her in different hospitals as noted above. Post mortem report does not indicate the percentage of burn injury received to the deceased. There is no dispute that the parameters for bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Section 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of co- accused Heerawati Devi and Ambika Prasad Mishra who are mother- 4 BAIL No. 21469 of 2025 in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Pradeep Kumar Mishra, 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: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 17, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad