In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vipul Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 183 of 2024, under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and the informant's daughter, who belong to different communities, started living as husband and wife since 22.02.2024. Subsequent to it, the applicant and his family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry thereby leading her to death on 27.04.2024.

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 is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the informant had filed an application at the police station stating that his daughter has committed suicide, which was entered in G.D. at 09:23 AM on 27.04.2024. It is further argued that the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings and the same was taken up on 27.04.2024 but subsequently, the FIR has been instituted on 28.04.2024 after legal consultations.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that there is nothing on record to suggest as to what was demanded as dowry. Only vague allegations have been made in the FIR as it was not possible for the applicant to demand any dowry from his wife as it is evident that both belong to different communities and the family members of both the parties were not in favour of the said marriage.

8. Learned counsel has further stated that there is a video on record and their transcriptions indicate that the deceased had requested her family members not to disturb her happily married life with the applicant. It is further argued that the deceased has committed suicide in the house of her married sister which is far away from the applicant's house, as such, the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

9. Learned counsel has also submitted that the bail application of the applicant was simply rejected by the trial court concerned only on the ground of long criminal antecedents as there are 21 other cases instituted against him. Out of 21 cases, he has been enlarged on bail in 17 cases and in 04 cases, he has complied with the provision of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel has lastly contended that 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 28.04.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

11. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant himself had left his wife at the house of her sister on 24.04.2024, as such, he cannot be absolved from the said crime. The trial is moving on as two witnesses have already been examined.

12. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that there are four neighbours of the applicant, namely, Anurag, Jagdish, Shaadi Lal and Munna Devi, who have categorically stated in their statements that the applicant was of bad character and he had even beaten up his earlier wife and sent her off to her house and only thereafter, the applicant and the deceased person were living together, as such, considering the past record and the criminal history of the applicant, he is not entitled for bail.

13. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

14. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicants just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of her sister's house and not the applicant's house coupled by the fact that the FIR is delayed by one day and the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Rahul Anguriya, who is involved in 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

18. 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. Order Date:- 20.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vipul Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 183 of 2024, under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and the informant's daughter, who belong to different communities, started living as husband and wife since 22.02.2024. Subsequent to it, the applicant and his family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry thereby leading her to death on 27.04.2024.

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 is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the informant had filed an application at the police station stating that his daughter has committed suicide, which was entered in G.D. at 09:23 AM on 27.04.2024. It is further argued that the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings and the same was taken up on 27.04.2024 but subsequently, the FIR has been instituted on 28.04.2024 after legal consultations.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that there is nothing on record to suggest as to what was demanded as dowry. Only vague allegations have been made in the FIR as it was not possible for the applicant to demand any dowry from his wife as it is evident that both belong to different communities and the family members of both the parties were not in favour of the said marriage.

8. Learned counsel has further stated that there is a video on record and their transcriptions indicate that the deceased had requested her family members not to disturb her happily married life with the applicant. It is further argued that the deceased has committed suicide in the house of her married sister which is far away from the applicant's house, as such, the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

9. Learned counsel has also submitted that the bail application of the applicant was simply rejected by the trial court concerned only on the ground of long criminal antecedents as there are 21 other cases instituted against him. Out of 21 cases, he has been enlarged on bail in 17 cases and in 04 cases, he has complied with the provision of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel has lastly contended that 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 28.04.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

11. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant himself had left his wife at the house of her sister on 24.04.2024, as such, he cannot be absolved from the said crime. The trial is moving on as two witnesses have already been examined.

12. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that there are four neighbours of the applicant, namely, Anurag, Jagdish, Shaadi Lal and Munna Devi, who have categorically stated in their statements that the applicant was of bad character and he had even beaten up his earlier wife and sent her off to her house and only thereafter, the applicant and the deceased person were living together, as such, considering the past record and the criminal history of the applicant, he is not entitled for bail.

13. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

14. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicants just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of her sister's house and not the applicant's house coupled by the fact that the FIR is delayed by one day and the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Rahul Anguriya, who is involved in 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

18. 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. Order Date:- 20.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad