The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh

2. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Hare Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 134 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 14.3.2023, and subsequent to it, the deceased had given birth to a baby-boy. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakh as dowry, thereby led her to death on 26.4.2025 at about 6:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the truth is that the deceased was a divorcee and she got divorce from her earlier estranged husband by filing petition U/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Subsequent to it, the deceased established illicit relationship elsewhere and peeved by the said act and after being questioned by the applicant she has committed suicide out of shame. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no application or complaint of demand of any dowry prior to the instant FIR. The mother of the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the sister of the applicant was exonerated by the police, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified. The applicant had informed the police about the said incident as the said application has been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today in Court.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as he has nothing to do with the said FIR No.51 of 2017 instituted against the applicant and other family members as it does not mention the name of the applicant rather the said person is some other Rohit Verma. The address mentioned in the said FIR is 260, Mukaryana, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi while the address in the instant FIR is 691/2-C, Chhuttu Ka Bagicha, Sangam Vihar Colony Nai Basti, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the applicant and deceased entered into cordial relationship as they both had undertaken training of Dialysis Technician together, as such, he has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is in jail since 29.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is the main accused person and the said allegations that deceased had illicit relationship are false as there is no evidence to corroborate the said allegations. The deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

10. Learned counsel for the informant has also stated that criminal history assigned to the applicant has not been explained as the said FIR was instituted in the year 2017 and eight years have passed during the intervening period. The addresses are likely to change while police station is same in both the cases. The applicant has not filed any document that he has been enlarged on bail in the said case, which is also a dowry case.

11. 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 Cr.P.C., 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.

12. 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. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. 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 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974 the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and there being no proper explanation of the criminal history of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

14. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

15. 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 :- 19.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Hare Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 134 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 14.3.2023, and subsequent to it, the deceased had given birth to a baby-boy. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakh as dowry, thereby led her to death on 26.4.2025 at about 6:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the truth is that the deceased was a divorcee and she got divorce from her earlier estranged husband by filing petition U/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Subsequent to it, the deceased established illicit relationship elsewhere and peeved by the said act and after being questioned by the applicant she has committed suicide out of shame. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no application or complaint of demand of any dowry prior to the instant FIR. The mother of the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the sister of the applicant was exonerated by the police, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified. The applicant had informed the police about the said incident as the said application has been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today in Court.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as he has nothing to do with the said FIR No.51 of 2017 instituted against the applicant and other family members as it does not mention the name of the applicant rather the said person is some other Rohit Verma. The address mentioned in the said FIR is 260, Mukaryana, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi while the address in the instant FIR is 691/2-C, Chhuttu Ka Bagicha, Sangam Vihar Colony Nai Basti, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the applicant and deceased entered into cordial relationship as they both had undertaken training of Dialysis Technician together, as such, he has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is in jail since 29.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is the main accused person and the said allegations that deceased had illicit relationship are false as there is no evidence to corroborate the said allegations. The deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

10. Learned counsel for the informant has also stated that criminal history assigned to the applicant has not been explained as the said FIR was instituted in the year 2017 and eight years have passed during the intervening period. The addresses are likely to change while police station is same in both the cases. The applicant has not filed any document that he has been enlarged on bail in the said case, which is also a dowry case.

11. 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 Cr.P.C., 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.

12. 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. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. 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 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974 the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and there being no proper explanation of the criminal history of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

14. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

15. 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 :- 19.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad