The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh

2. Heard Sri Kartikeya Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 555 of 2024, under Sections 80(2) & 85 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Iglas, District - Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites on 09.12.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry thereby committed her murder by hanging her to the ceiling on 13.10.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR was instituted in the night of 14.10.2024 at 01:15 AM but there is no time of offence mentioned in it.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there are vague allegations in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry as it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR as to what was demanded as dowry. The said allegation has been made just to make the matter fall within the category of Section 80(2) of BNS.

7. Learned counsel has further stated that it is mentioned in the FIR that the deceased person had forcibly put to death but the postmortem report indicates otherwise as the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within the reasonable time. Even the rigor mortis of the deceased person was not set and the postmortem examination was conducted on 14.10.2024 at 01:40 PM which indicates that the offence has been committed less than 24 hours of the postmortem examination, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

10. 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.

11. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.

12. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.

13. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.

14. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89, the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."

15. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) 3 SCC 501, it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. 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; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the FIR has been lodged within a reasonable time coupled by the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

17. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

18. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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.

19. 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:- 13.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Kartikeya Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 555 of 2024, under Sections 80(2) & 85 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Iglas, District - Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites on 09.12.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry thereby committed her murder by hanging her to the ceiling on 13.10.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR was instituted in the night of 14.10.2024 at 01:15 AM but there is no time of offence mentioned in it.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there are vague allegations in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry as it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR as to what was demanded as dowry. The said allegation has been made just to make the matter fall within the category of Section 80(2) of BNS.

7. Learned counsel has further stated that it is mentioned in the FIR that the deceased person had forcibly put to death but the postmortem report indicates otherwise as the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within the reasonable time. Even the rigor mortis of the deceased person was not set and the postmortem examination was conducted on 14.10.2024 at 01:40 PM which indicates that the offence has been committed less than 24 hours of the postmortem examination, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

10. 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.

11. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.

12. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.

13. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.

14. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89, the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."

15. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) 3 SCC 501, it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. 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; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the FIR has been lodged within a reasonable time coupled by the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

17. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

18. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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.

19. 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:- 13.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad