High Court · 2025

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2-By means of this application, applicant-Shimla who is involved in Case Crime No. 362 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur seeks enlargement on bail. 3-As per prosecution case in brief, complainant- Prakash Chand, who is father of the deceased-Neha lodged a first information report on 28.11.2023 with regard to an incident which took place on 25.11.2023 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Mohit, Rajveer Singh, Gullu, Varsha and Shimla (present applicant), who are husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister- in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. The contents of the F.I.R. is reproduced as under:- "ससेववा मम शቦኍमवान ्ቚभवारቦኍ ननरቦኍ्ቌक महहोदय कहोतववालቦኍ- बवाबबूगढ छवावनቦኍ जनपद- हवापपुड महहोदय ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी तቦኍन पपुनቔኌयवााሰ ्ቅमशशः नपिሬककी , नसेहवा व ननशवा गवाम -बछडडौतवा रवानवा बवाबबूगढ छवावनቦኍ ननववासቦኍ रवाजवቦኍर ससिሬह कसे तቦኍन पपुቔኌኘ᭖ ्ቅमशशः अरुण , महोनहत व गपुलबू कसे सवार नहन्दबू रवानत नቦኍनत कसे सवार नवववाह हहआ रवा। जहो अपनसे पररववार कसे सवार रह रहसे रसे। मसेरቦኍ पपुቔኌቦኍ नसेहवा कसे नवववाह मम जहो दहसेज नदयवा रवा उससे लसेकर नसेहवा कवा पतቦኍ (पतቦኍ) महोनहत व रवाजवቦኍर ससिሬह, दसेवर गपुलबू व ननद वरवाቧኋ व सवास नशमलवा परसेशवान करनसे लगसे और उपरहो्ሹ सभቦኍ दहसेज ककी मवािሬग करनसे लगसे व नसेहवा कहो कम दहसेज दसेनसे कसे कवारण नसेहवा कहो शवारቦኍररक ्ቚतवाण -नवा मवार पቦኍट व गवालቦኍ गलडौच करनसे लगसे नसेहवा कवा पतቦኍ ननरिሬतर दहसेज ककी मवािሬग करतवा रवा। महहोदय , उ्ሹ सब बवातसे हम पररजनኘ᭖ कहो बतवातቦኍ रቦኍ। दहसेज ककी मवािሬग पबूरቦኍ न करनसे कसे कवारण मसेरቦኍ बडቦኍ पपुቔኌቦኍ नपिሬककी कहो लगभग एक वरቧኋ पबूवቧኋ अरुण नसे छहोड रखवा हहै। सजस कवारण ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी पपुቔኌቦኍ मसेरसे पवास रह रहቦኍ हह। महहोदय , दहसेज ककी मवािሬग पबूरቦኍ न करनसे कसे कवारण ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी पपुቔኌቦኍ नसेहवा ककी हत्यवा नदनवािሬक 25-11- 2023 कहो रवाቔኌቦኍ मम , महोनहत , गपुलबू रवाजवቦኍर ससिሬह , वरवाቧኋ , व नशमलवा नसे नमल कर कर दቦኍ । सजसककी सबूचनवा कल नदनवािሬक 26-11.2023 कहो ्ቚवातशः दቦኍ रቦኍ। महहोदय, उपरहो्ሹ सभቦኍ दहसेज कसे लहोभቦኍ हहै महहोदय, ्ቚवारቕኍ ररपहोटቧኋ सलखवानसे आयवा हहै। ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी ररपहोटቧኋ सलखकर उपरहो्ሹ कसे सखलवाफ कवानबूनቦኍ कवायቧኋववाहቦኍ करनसे ककी कक पवा करम।" 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and she has no concern with this case. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case without attributing any specific role to her. Since co-accused Varsha and Gulshan @ Gullu have been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 24.07.2024 and 19.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24718 of 2024 and 21183 of 2024, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 02.04.2024 may also be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the marriage of the deceased-Neha was solemnized with Mohit about 2- 1/2 years ago. The deceased died her unnatural death within short span of her marriage in her matrimonial home. As per post-mortem report, cause of death is ‘strangulation’. The specific allegation of harassment and torture of the deceased in her matrimonial home has been levelled against all the accused persons, hence, considering the gravity of the offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per post-mortem report, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:- (i) Ligature mark present below chin right side of neck 7cm below right ear, above thyroid going backward 1cm below left ear and interrupted on back of neck. Neck circumference 31 cm and ligature mark length 25cm width 2.5cm, abraded hard area of size 2.5cm x 15cm in front of neck 5cm below chin. (ii) Gap between the ligature mark is 10cm at the back of neck. (iii) Ligature mark is straight and base of groove is brown, overlapping. (iv) Mr-belling of left side upper neck with bluish discolouration of size 5cm x 2cm. (v) Ligature mark is of width 2cm right side 1cm at front of neck and 1cm at left side of neck. In the light of post mortem report, there is no dispute that it is a case of strangulation, which is a heinous offence. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act shall is also attracted in the present case. So far as the bail orders of co- accused Varsha and Gulshan @ Gullu are concerned, this Court finds that no reason has been recorded by the co-ordinate Bench while granting bail to them, whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559 has laid down the guidelines that every order either rejection or granting bail must reflect the reasons of the same. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under :- "26.The importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

39. Grant of bail to the Respondent No. 2/accused only on the basis of parity shows that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from the vice of non-application of mind rendering it unsustainable. The High Court has not taken into consideration the criminal history of the respondent No. 2/accused, nature of crime, material evidences available , involvement of respondent No. 2/accused in the said crime and recovery of weapon from his possession." 7-Hence, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav (Supra), this Court is not bound to follow aforesaid bail orders, which are based upon no reasons and against the conscious of this Court. 8-In view of the above, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as material evidence on record coupled with the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad vs. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 9-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 10-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2-By means of this application, applicant-Shimla who is involved in Case Crime No. 362 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur seeks enlargement on bail. 3-As per prosecution case in brief, complainant- Prakash Chand, who is father of the deceased-Neha lodged a first information report on 28.11.2023 with regard to an incident which took place on 25.11.2023 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Mohit, Rajveer Singh, Gullu, Varsha and Shimla (present applicant), who are husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister- in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. The contents of the F.I.R. is reproduced as under:- "ससेववा मम शቦኍमवान ्ቚभवारቦኍ ननरቦኍ्ቌक महहोदय कहोतववालቦኍ- बवाबबूगढ छवावनቦኍ जनपद- हवापपुड महहोदय ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी तቦኍन पपुनቔኌयवााሰ ्ቅमशशः नपिሬककी , नसेहवा व ननशवा गवाम -बछडडौतवा रवानवा बवाबबूगढ छवावनቦኍ ननववासቦኍ रवाजवቦኍर ससिሬह कसे तቦኍन पपुቔኌኘ᭖ ्ቅमशशः अरुण , महोनहत व गपुलबू कसे सवार नहन्दबू रवानत नቦኍनत कसे सवार नवववाह हहआ रवा। जहो अपनसे पररववार कसे सवार रह रहसे रसे। मसेरቦኍ पपुቔኌቦኍ नसेहवा कसे नवववाह मम जहो दहसेज नदयवा रवा उससे लसेकर नसेहवा कवा पतቦኍ (पतቦኍ) महोनहत व रवाजवቦኍर ससिሬह, दसेवर गपुलबू व ननद वरवाቧኋ व सवास नशमलवा परसेशवान करनसे लगसे और उपरहो्ሹ सभቦኍ दहसेज ककी मवािሬग करनसे लगसे व नसेहवा कहो कम दहसेज दसेनसे कसे कवारण नसेहवा कहो शवारቦኍररक ्ቚतवाण -नवा मवार पቦኍट व गवालቦኍ गलडौच करनसे लगसे नसेहवा कवा पतቦኍ ननरिሬतर दहसेज ककी मवािሬग करतवा रवा। महहोदय , उ्ሹ सब बवातसे हम पररजनኘ᭖ कहो बतवातቦኍ रቦኍ। दहसेज ककी मवािሬग पबूरቦኍ न करनसे कसे कवारण मसेरቦኍ बडቦኍ पपुቔኌቦኍ नपिሬककी कहो लगभग एक वरቧኋ पबूवቧኋ अरुण नसे छहोड रखवा हहै। सजस कवारण ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी पपुቔኌቦኍ मसेरसे पवास रह रहቦኍ हह। महहोदय , दहसेज ककी मवािሬग पबूरቦኍ न करनसे कसे कवारण ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी पपुቔኌቦኍ नसेहवा ककी हत्यवा नदनवािሬक 25-11- 2023 कहो रवाቔኌቦኍ मम , महोनहत , गपुलबू रवाजवቦኍर ससिሬह , वरवाቧኋ , व नशमलवा नसे नमल कर कर दቦኍ । सजसककी सबूचनवा कल नदनवािሬक 26-11.2023 कहो ्ቚवातशः दቦኍ रቦኍ। महहोदय, उपरहो्ሹ सभቦኍ दहसेज कसे लहोभቦኍ हहै महहोदय, ्ቚवारቕኍ ररपहोटቧኋ सलखवानसे आयवा हहै। ्ቚवारቕኍ ककी ररपहोटቧኋ सलखकर उपरहो्ሹ कसे सखलवाफ कवानबूनቦኍ कवायቧኋववाहቦኍ करनसे ककी कक पवा करम।" 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and she has no concern with this case. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case without attributing any specific role to her. Since co-accused Varsha and Gulshan @ Gullu have been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 24.07.2024 and 19.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24718 of 2024 and 21183 of 2024, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 02.04.2024 may also be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the marriage of the deceased-Neha was solemnized with Mohit about 2- 1/2 years ago. The deceased died her unnatural death within short span of her marriage in her matrimonial home. As per post-mortem report, cause of death is ‘strangulation’. The specific allegation of harassment and torture of the deceased in her matrimonial home has been levelled against all the accused persons, hence, considering the gravity of the offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per post-mortem report, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:- (i) Ligature mark present below chin right side of neck 7cm below right ear, above thyroid going backward 1cm below left ear and interrupted on back of neck. Neck circumference 31 cm and ligature mark length 25cm width 2.5cm, abraded hard area of size 2.5cm x 15cm in front of neck 5cm below chin. (ii) Gap between the ligature mark is 10cm at the back of neck. (iii) Ligature mark is straight and base of groove is brown, overlapping. (iv) Mr-belling of left side upper neck with bluish discolouration of size 5cm x 2cm. (v) Ligature mark is of width 2cm right side 1cm at front of neck and 1cm at left side of neck. In the light of post mortem report, there is no dispute that it is a case of strangulation, which is a heinous offence. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act shall is also attracted in the present case. So far as the bail orders of co- accused Varsha and Gulshan @ Gullu are concerned, this Court finds that no reason has been recorded by the co-ordinate Bench while granting bail to them, whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559 has laid down the guidelines that every order either rejection or granting bail must reflect the reasons of the same. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under :- "26.The importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

39. Grant of bail to the Respondent No. 2/accused only on the basis of parity shows that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from the vice of non-application of mind rendering it unsustainable. The High Court has not taken into consideration the criminal history of the respondent No. 2/accused, nature of crime, material evidences available , involvement of respondent No. 2/accused in the said crime and recovery of weapon from his possession." 7-Hence, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav (Supra), this Court is not bound to follow aforesaid bail orders, which are based upon no reasons and against the conscious of this Court. 8-In view of the above, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as material evidence on record coupled with the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad vs. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 9-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 10-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad