Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Satyam Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 132 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kagaraul, District Agra.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9221 of 2025 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which Smt. Rama Devi the first informant has been examined as PW-1, Smt. Pinki has been examined as PW2 and Sunil Kumar has been examined as PW-3. It is submitted that out of the said three witnesses Smt. Rama Devi the first informant has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the trial court. It is submitted that in so far as the other two witnesses are concerned they have not levelled allegations against the applicant. It is submitted that the reading of the said statements would go to show that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is false. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 32 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 09.10.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025. It is submitted that in the trial the first informant Smt. Rama Devi has been declared hostile but 2 BAIL No. 26945 of 2025 the other two witnesses have not been declared hostile and there is nothing on record in the statements to show that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as such the bail application be dismissed.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025. The same reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 132 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Kagaraul, District Agra.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 07.10.2024 by Smt. Rama Devi against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter Rinki was solemnized on 13.05.2023 with the applicant. Her husband had died after which she had nurtured her children and married her daughter. The accused persons including the applicant for additional dowry tortured her daughter physically and mentally and used to assault her. In dowry they were demanding a land which was in her name, one scooty and Rs. 2 lakh cash. They were counselled many times but they continued torturing her daughter. Some days before her daughter gave birth to a child but the demand continued. On 06.10.2024, the accused persons murdered her daughter by hanging her. Her report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein she was found to have received single ligature mark and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that there was never any demand of dowry either by the applicant or family members. It is submitted that the investigation concluded and four other named accused persons were exonerated whereas charge sheet was submitted only against the applicant on 22.12.2024. It is submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the present case only because of the fact that he is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was living in depression even prior to marriage for which family members of the deceased along with the informant had given application and affidavit to the Investigating Officer, para 10 and annexure 6 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since

09.10.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the 3 BAIL No. 26945 of 2025 applicant and other accused persons. It is further submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within 17 months of marriage. The death is unnatural. It is submitted that there is no explanation given by the applicant regarding unnatural death of the deceased in her matrimonial house. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within 17 months of her marriage. There is allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other accused persons. There is no plausible explanation as to how the deceased died in her matrimonial house. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

8. The first informant although has been declared hostile by the trial court but the two other witnesses namely Smt. Pinki and Sunil Kumar have supported the prosecution case. The appreciation of the evidence is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. No new and fresh ground for bail is made out. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 18, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Satyam Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 132 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kagaraul, District Agra.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9221 of 2025 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which Smt. Rama Devi the first informant has been examined as PW-1, Smt. Pinki has been examined as PW2 and Sunil Kumar has been examined as PW-3. It is submitted that out of the said three witnesses Smt. Rama Devi the first informant has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the trial court. It is submitted that in so far as the other two witnesses are concerned they have not levelled allegations against the applicant. It is submitted that the reading of the said statements would go to show that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is false. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 32 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 09.10.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025. It is submitted that in the trial the first informant Smt. Rama Devi has been declared hostile but 2 BAIL No. 26945 of 2025 the other two witnesses have not been declared hostile and there is nothing on record in the statements to show that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as such the bail application be dismissed.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025. The same reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 132 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Kagaraul, District Agra.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 07.10.2024 by Smt. Rama Devi against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter Rinki was solemnized on 13.05.2023 with the applicant. Her husband had died after which she had nurtured her children and married her daughter. The accused persons including the applicant for additional dowry tortured her daughter physically and mentally and used to assault her. In dowry they were demanding a land which was in her name, one scooty and Rs. 2 lakh cash. They were counselled many times but they continued torturing her daughter. Some days before her daughter gave birth to a child but the demand continued. On 06.10.2024, the accused persons murdered her daughter by hanging her. Her report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein she was found to have received single ligature mark and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that there was never any demand of dowry either by the applicant or family members. It is submitted that the investigation concluded and four other named accused persons were exonerated whereas charge sheet was submitted only against the applicant on 22.12.2024. It is submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the present case only because of the fact that he is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was living in depression even prior to marriage for which family members of the deceased along with the informant had given application and affidavit to the Investigating Officer, para 10 and annexure 6 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since

09.10.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the 3 BAIL No. 26945 of 2025 applicant and other accused persons. It is further submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within 17 months of marriage. The death is unnatural. It is submitted that there is no explanation given by the applicant regarding unnatural death of the deceased in her matrimonial house. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within 17 months of her marriage. There is allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other accused persons. There is no plausible explanation as to how the deceased died in her matrimonial house. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

8. The first informant although has been declared hostile by the trial court but the two other witnesses namely Smt. Pinki and Sunil Kumar have supported the prosecution case. The appreciation of the evidence is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. No new and fresh ground for bail is made out. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 18, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad