High Court · 2025

3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2023, which is reproduced as below:- “Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 534 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kannauj, District Kannauj, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The applicant is husband of deceased. The marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place only about 17-18 days prior to the incident and that the allegation of dowry demand and harassment of deceased, made against the applicant, is thoroughly false. The applicant is a rickshaw puller and it is not probable that applicant might have made demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. It is submitted that in fact deceased was suffering from illness and she has committed suicide under depression. In postmortem report, except ligature mark, no other injury has been shown on the body of deceased and cause of death of deceased has been shown asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2021 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial. Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is husband of deceased. The marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place only about 17-18 days prior to the incident. There is evidence that after the marriage, the deceased was being harassed by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that deceased was not suffering from any illness and the applicant/accused has never informed the informant or any other family members that deceased was suffering from illness. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Jitendra is hereby rejected. However, keeping in view period of incarceration of applicant, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. "

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is husband of deceased. In postmortem report of deceased, except ligature mark, no other injury has been shown on body of deceased and cause of death is ante-mortem hanging. While rejecting first bail application of the applicant vide order dated 07.04.2023, the trial Court was directed to expedite the proceedings of the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of one year but no substantial progress has been made in the trial. It was submitted that the informant has moved an application for transfer of the case and in Transfer Application No.251 of 2023, proceedings of the trial were stayed. It was submitted that the proceedings of the trial are lying stayed since long, thus, the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is in jail since 13.08.2021 and thus he has already undergone the detention of about three and a half years. It was submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected but the aforesaid factual position could not be disputed.

5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, a case for bail is made out.

6. The bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant - Jitendra involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 RKM RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2023, which is reproduced as below:- “Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 534 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kannauj, District Kannauj, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The applicant is husband of deceased. The marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place only about 17-18 days prior to the incident and that the allegation of dowry demand and harassment of deceased, made against the applicant, is thoroughly false. The applicant is a rickshaw puller and it is not probable that applicant might have made demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. It is submitted that in fact deceased was suffering from illness and she has committed suicide under depression. In postmortem report, except ligature mark, no other injury has been shown on the body of deceased and cause of death of deceased has been shown asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2021 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial. Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is husband of deceased. The marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place only about 17-18 days prior to the incident. There is evidence that after the marriage, the deceased was being harassed by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that deceased was not suffering from any illness and the applicant/accused has never informed the informant or any other family members that deceased was suffering from illness. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Jitendra is hereby rejected. However, keeping in view period of incarceration of applicant, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. "

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is husband of deceased. In postmortem report of deceased, except ligature mark, no other injury has been shown on body of deceased and cause of death is ante-mortem hanging. While rejecting first bail application of the applicant vide order dated 07.04.2023, the trial Court was directed to expedite the proceedings of the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of one year but no substantial progress has been made in the trial. It was submitted that the informant has moved an application for transfer of the case and in Transfer Application No.251 of 2023, proceedings of the trial were stayed. It was submitted that the proceedings of the trial are lying stayed since long, thus, the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is in jail since 13.08.2021 and thus he has already undergone the detention of about three and a half years. It was submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected but the aforesaid factual position could not be disputed.

5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, a case for bail is made out.

6. The bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant - Jitendra involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 RKM RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad