State of U.P v. Party

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Abhishek Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. of 421 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 123 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on

27.09.2024 against Smt. Meena Devi / mother-in-law, Pratibha Kumari / nand, Priyanka / nand and Abhishek Kumar / husband by Manmohan Singh alleging therein that his daughter Nirja Nandini was married to the applicant on 03.12.2023 in which he had given about Rs. 55 lakhs as dowry in which a Brezza Car Rs. 15 lakhs, gold ornaments Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs cash and cheque were given. After marriage his daugther went to her matrimonial house and 2 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 there was demand of additional dowry and she used to be assaulted by her mother-in-law and two unmarried nands for which her husband Abhishek Kumar used to support them. On 26.09.2024 at about 10- 11 am he received a phone call from her nand Pratibha who told him that his daughter is ill and admitted in New Radharani Hospital and he may come immediately. He immediately went there and came to know that the accused persons in the night of 25.09.2024 had given poison to his daughter. The condition of his daughter was critical and thus he took her to Rainbow Hospital and in the meantime her in-laws ran away from the said place. At about 11 pm the doctor declared his daughter to be dead. The accused persons due to demand of additional dowry have given poison to his daughter.

6. The postmortem examination of the deceased Nirja Nandini was conducted on 27.09.2024 in which the doctor did not find any external injury all over the body. Postmortem lividity was present all over buttock, back of chest and back of abdomen with both arm and both leg. The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera report after examination was found to contain Organophosphorus insecticide.

7. 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 died by consuming poison. The present case is a case of suicide. It is further submitted that the information regarding the death of the deceased was given by Rainbow Hospital to the police on which the inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted in which the first informant Manmohan Singh was witness no.1, Nitesh Prabhakar the brother of the deceased was witness no.2, Manoj Kumar the chacha of the decased was witness no.3, Dheeraj Kumar Singh the cousin brother of the deceased was witness no.4 and Deepak Singh brother- in-law of the deceased was witness no.5 but all the said witnesses did not make any complaint regarding any element of involvement of the applicant and other accused persons and also regarding demand of dowry. It is submitted that in so far as the allegation regarding demand of dowry is concerned, the same is vague and there is no disclosure as to what was the actual demand of dowry in the first information report. It is further submitted that the investigation in the 3 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 matter has concluded and the police has exonerated Pratibha Kumari and Priyanka the nands of the deceased finding their involvement to be false and thus the prosecution story is not truthful. It is submitted that the deceased after consuming poison was admitted in the hospital by the applicant which would go to show his bonafides. It is further submitted that Dr. Vimal Kumar was interrogated by the police who was the doctor on call in Unique Hospital who stated that when the deceased was brought there she was in a fully conscious state and she told him that she has consumed something. It is submitted that Dr. Vineet Agarwal of New Radharani Hospital has stated that when the deceased was brought to the hospital she was speaking and her father got her discharged against the medical advice and thus a document was prepared as LAMA. It is argued that co- accused Smt. Meena Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 441 of 2025 (Smt. Meena Devi Vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record, the same reads as under:- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Singh, leaned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 421 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 123 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 3.12.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 25.9.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and she has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations are per se false. The deceased had consumed some poison and was rushed to the hospital by the son of the 4 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 applicant. Learned counsel has stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved and the viscera report indicates the presence of organophosphorus insecticides.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the informant has been arrayed as Panch witness no.1 to the inquest proceedings which were prepared well before the institution of FIR and there is no whispering of a single word about demand of dowry at that stage. Learned counsel has stated that there are general allegations regarding demand of dowry and nowhere it is mentioned as to what was demanded in dowry, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. do not stand fulfilled. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.11.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that in the viscera organophosphorus insecticide was found and it has come up in the statement of the informant that applicant and other family members used to demand Rs.20 lakh as dowry.

9. The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that applicant is the mother-in- law of the deceased person and there being general allegations against her coupled with the fact that informant is Panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Smt. Meena Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way 5 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses." The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.10.2024.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within 01 year of marriage and the death is unnatural. It is submitted that no information about the incident was given by the Unique Hospital to the police which is a manipulation by the accused persons. It is further submitted that there is allegation of torture, demand of dowry and harassment by the accused persons. It is submitted that even the neighbours of the applicant have stated regarding torture and harassment of the deceased by the accused persons. It is submitted that the deceased died after she was administered poison. It is submitted that the bail application be thus rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted the deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture by the applicant who is the husband of the deceased.

10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased was not found to have received any bodily injury. The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera was found to contain Organophosphorus insecticide. The first information report was lodged against four persons including the applicant. After investigation the involvement of two nands of the deceased was found to be false and they were exonerated in the present matter. Specific allegations are also levelled against them. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted by the police on the information received from Rainbow Hospital. The family members of the deceased were the five witnesses of the inquest who at that point of time did not state of any demand of dowry and torture by the accused persons. The first information report does not state of the actual demand of dowry and vaguely refers to the fact that extra 6 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 dowry was demanded. The doctor who attended the deceased in Unique Hospital stated that she was in a conscious state and had stated of consuming something. Co-accused Smt. Meena Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

12. Let the applicant- Abhishek Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and 7 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

13. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

14. The bail application is allowed.

15. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 12, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Abhishek Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. of 421 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 123 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on

27.09.2024 against Smt. Meena Devi / mother-in-law, Pratibha Kumari / nand, Priyanka / nand and Abhishek Kumar / husband by Manmohan Singh alleging therein that his daughter Nirja Nandini was married to the applicant on 03.12.2023 in which he had given about Rs. 55 lakhs as dowry in which a Brezza Car Rs. 15 lakhs, gold ornaments Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs cash and cheque were given. After marriage his daugther went to her matrimonial house and 2 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 there was demand of additional dowry and she used to be assaulted by her mother-in-law and two unmarried nands for which her husband Abhishek Kumar used to support them. On 26.09.2024 at about 10- 11 am he received a phone call from her nand Pratibha who told him that his daughter is ill and admitted in New Radharani Hospital and he may come immediately. He immediately went there and came to know that the accused persons in the night of 25.09.2024 had given poison to his daughter. The condition of his daughter was critical and thus he took her to Rainbow Hospital and in the meantime her in-laws ran away from the said place. At about 11 pm the doctor declared his daughter to be dead. The accused persons due to demand of additional dowry have given poison to his daughter.

6. The postmortem examination of the deceased Nirja Nandini was conducted on 27.09.2024 in which the doctor did not find any external injury all over the body. Postmortem lividity was present all over buttock, back of chest and back of abdomen with both arm and both leg. The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera report after examination was found to contain Organophosphorus insecticide.

7. 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 died by consuming poison. The present case is a case of suicide. It is further submitted that the information regarding the death of the deceased was given by Rainbow Hospital to the police on which the inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted in which the first informant Manmohan Singh was witness no.1, Nitesh Prabhakar the brother of the deceased was witness no.2, Manoj Kumar the chacha of the decased was witness no.3, Dheeraj Kumar Singh the cousin brother of the deceased was witness no.4 and Deepak Singh brother- in-law of the deceased was witness no.5 but all the said witnesses did not make any complaint regarding any element of involvement of the applicant and other accused persons and also regarding demand of dowry. It is submitted that in so far as the allegation regarding demand of dowry is concerned, the same is vague and there is no disclosure as to what was the actual demand of dowry in the first information report. It is further submitted that the investigation in the 3 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 matter has concluded and the police has exonerated Pratibha Kumari and Priyanka the nands of the deceased finding their involvement to be false and thus the prosecution story is not truthful. It is submitted that the deceased after consuming poison was admitted in the hospital by the applicant which would go to show his bonafides. It is further submitted that Dr. Vimal Kumar was interrogated by the police who was the doctor on call in Unique Hospital who stated that when the deceased was brought there she was in a fully conscious state and she told him that she has consumed something. It is submitted that Dr. Vineet Agarwal of New Radharani Hospital has stated that when the deceased was brought to the hospital she was speaking and her father got her discharged against the medical advice and thus a document was prepared as LAMA. It is argued that co- accused Smt. Meena Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 441 of 2025 (Smt. Meena Devi Vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record, the same reads as under:- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Singh, leaned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 421 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 123 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 3.12.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 25.9.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and she has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations are per se false. The deceased had consumed some poison and was rushed to the hospital by the son of the 4 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 applicant. Learned counsel has stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved and the viscera report indicates the presence of organophosphorus insecticides.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the informant has been arrayed as Panch witness no.1 to the inquest proceedings which were prepared well before the institution of FIR and there is no whispering of a single word about demand of dowry at that stage. Learned counsel has stated that there are general allegations regarding demand of dowry and nowhere it is mentioned as to what was demanded in dowry, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. do not stand fulfilled. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.11.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that in the viscera organophosphorus insecticide was found and it has come up in the statement of the informant that applicant and other family members used to demand Rs.20 lakh as dowry.

9. The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that applicant is the mother-in- law of the deceased person and there being general allegations against her coupled with the fact that informant is Panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Smt. Meena Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way 5 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses." The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.10.2024.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within 01 year of marriage and the death is unnatural. It is submitted that no information about the incident was given by the Unique Hospital to the police which is a manipulation by the accused persons. It is further submitted that there is allegation of torture, demand of dowry and harassment by the accused persons. It is submitted that even the neighbours of the applicant have stated regarding torture and harassment of the deceased by the accused persons. It is submitted that the deceased died after she was administered poison. It is submitted that the bail application be thus rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted the deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture by the applicant who is the husband of the deceased.

10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased was not found to have received any bodily injury. The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera was found to contain Organophosphorus insecticide. The first information report was lodged against four persons including the applicant. After investigation the involvement of two nands of the deceased was found to be false and they were exonerated in the present matter. Specific allegations are also levelled against them. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted by the police on the information received from Rainbow Hospital. The family members of the deceased were the five witnesses of the inquest who at that point of time did not state of any demand of dowry and torture by the accused persons. The first information report does not state of the actual demand of dowry and vaguely refers to the fact that extra 6 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 dowry was demanded. The doctor who attended the deceased in Unique Hospital stated that she was in a conscious state and had stated of consuming something. Co-accused Smt. Meena Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

12. Let the applicant- Abhishek Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and 7 BAIL No. 28534 of 2025 (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

13. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

14. The bail application is allowed.

15. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 12, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad