State of U.P v. Party
Case Details
Mr. Abhay Singh, learned Advocate, has put in appearance and filed his power on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record. By means of this bail application, applicant Narendra Pal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 194 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Subhash Nagar, district Bareilly, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the deceased Anjali, got an F.I.R. lodged on 24.03.2025 against the applicant Narendra Pal, Balveer Singh, Rama Devi, Chandan, Nirmala Devi and Kanchan, who are husband, father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and cousin brother-in-law of the deceased, respectively, stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter Anjali was solemnized on 10.05.2023 with Narendra Pal. In the marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per his capacity but there was additional demand of a car from the side of the accused persons. On account of his daughter's harassment, she had been living for the last six months in his house but on the persuasion of relatives, she was sent to her matrimonial home. On 23.03.2025, Anjali talked to her mother and told about her harassment. On 24.03.2025, he received information that his daughter has died. Heard Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Abhay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is 2 BAIL No. 31416 of 2025 husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was no demand of dowry from the side of the applicant as alleged by the prosecution. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant whereas the deceased Anjali died by committing suicide herself. It is also pointed out that the applicant is a Loco Pilot in Indian Railways and at the time of incident which took place in the morning of 24.03.2025, he was not at home and as per CMS report of Railway Department, he was on duty on 24.03.2025 at 04:55 A.M. In this regard, he has also referred the statement of landlady Smt. Kanchan, who has stated inter alia that on the day of incident, her husband got ready early in the morning at about 05:00 and left for duty. Narendra Pal (applicant) also left for duty before her husband. When Anjali’s child was crying continuously, she called out Anjali from downstairs but there was no response, then she went into the room, she saw that deceased Anjali was hanging in the room. Then she told her neighbours, informed the police, also called her husband and made him call Narendra Pal to come home. Referring the statement of Abhay Kumar, who is owner of the house, it is pointed out that he has also stated inter alia that on the date of incident, his duty was on the Aligarh Passenger train, so he got ready and left early in the morning at about 05:00 AM. Narendra Pal left for duty before him and he received information about the incident at about 09:00 A.M. from his wife, then he informed Narendra Pal. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, much emphasis has been given by contending that admittedly, at the time of incident, the applicant was not at home. It is also pointed out that the date of incident is of 24.03.2025 but due to typographical error, in the statements of Smt. Kanchan and Abhay Kumar, date of incident has been mentioned as 28.05.2025 in place of 24.03.2025. It is also pointed out that on the information of Smt. Kanchan, police also came at the house on 24.03.2025 at about 11:23 A.M. and found that dead body of the deceased was hanging with latch (kunda) of the window. Thereafter, inquest proceeding was conducted and at the time of inquest proceeding, complainant, who is father of the deceased, two persons of his side, namely, Neeraj Singh and Deepak Singh as well as two brothers-in-law of the deceased, namely, Arvind Kumar and Bablu were very much present but they did not make allegation about demand of dowry against the applicant. It is also submitted that during investigation, co-accused Chandra Pal @ Chandan, Nirmala Devi and Kanchan have been exonerated and they have not been charge-sheeted. The charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant, Balveer Singh and Rama Devi. It is further pointed out that co-accused Balveer Singh and Rama Devi have been granted bail by the concerned Court below vide order dated 17.05.2025. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The 3 BAIL No. 31416 of 2025 applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that as per the post mortem report of the deceased dated 24.03.2025, probable date of death of the deceased is about half to one day, as such, the deceased died in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2025 and at that time, the applicant was at home but he did not give information about her death. However, they could not dispute the other submissions as advanced on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The statement of landlady Smt. Kanchan, who first time went into the room after hearing sound of child’s crying, has clearly stated that at that time, the applicant was not at home but he had left for his duty. The applicant got information about the said incident through Smt. Kanchan’s husband Abhay Kumar. At the time of inquest, complainant and his other family members were very much present but they do not make allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant rather they have stated that the deceased died by committing suicide. I also find that co-accused Balveer Singh and Rama Devi have been granted bail as noted above. The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. However, it is relevant to mention that there is no dispute that the parameters for bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Section 117 and 118 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. 4 BAIL No. 31416 of 2025 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Narendra Pal 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 15, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Mr. Abhay Singh, learned Advocate, has put in appearance and filed his power on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record. By means of this bail application, applicant Narendra Pal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 194 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Subhash Nagar, district Bareilly, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the deceased Anjali, got an F.I.R. lodged on 24.03.2025 against the applicant Narendra Pal, Balveer Singh, Rama Devi, Chandan, Nirmala Devi and Kanchan, who are husband, father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and cousin brother-in-law of the deceased, respectively, stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter Anjali was solemnized on 10.05.2023 with Narendra Pal. In the marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per his capacity but there was additional demand of a car from the side of the accused persons. On account of his daughter's harassment, she had been living for the last six months in his house but on the persuasion of relatives, she was sent to her matrimonial home. On 23.03.2025, Anjali talked to her mother and told about her harassment. On 24.03.2025, he received information that his daughter has died. Heard Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Abhay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is 2 BAIL No. 31416 of 2025 husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was no demand of dowry from the side of the applicant as alleged by the prosecution. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant whereas the deceased Anjali died by committing suicide herself. It is also pointed out that the applicant is a Loco Pilot in Indian Railways and at the time of incident which took place in the morning of 24.03.2025, he was not at home and as per CMS report of Railway Department, he was on duty on 24.03.2025 at 04:55 A.M. In this regard, he has also referred the statement of landlady Smt. Kanchan, who has stated inter alia that on the day of incident, her husband got ready early in the morning at about 05:00 and left for duty. Narendra Pal (applicant) also left for duty before her husband. When Anjali’s child was crying continuously, she called out Anjali from downstairs but there was no response, then she went into the room, she saw that deceased Anjali was hanging in the room. Then she told her neighbours, informed the police, also called her husband and made him call Narendra Pal to come home. Referring the statement of Abhay Kumar, who is owner of the house, it is pointed out that he has also stated inter alia that on the date of incident, his duty was on the Aligarh Passenger train, so he got ready and left early in the morning at about 05:00 AM. Narendra Pal left for duty before him and he received information about the incident at about 09:00 A.M. from his wife, then he informed Narendra Pal. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, much emphasis has been given by contending that admittedly, at the time of incident, the applicant was not at home. It is also pointed out that the date of incident is of 24.03.2025 but due to typographical error, in the statements of Smt. Kanchan and Abhay Kumar, date of incident has been mentioned as 28.05.2025 in place of 24.03.2025. It is also pointed out that on the information of Smt. Kanchan, police also came at the house on 24.03.2025 at about 11:23 A.M. and found that dead body of the deceased was hanging with latch (kunda) of the window. Thereafter, inquest proceeding was conducted and at the time of inquest proceeding, complainant, who is father of the deceased, two persons of his side, namely, Neeraj Singh and Deepak Singh as well as two brothers-in-law of the deceased, namely, Arvind Kumar and Bablu were very much present but they did not make allegation about demand of dowry against the applicant. It is also submitted that during investigation, co-accused Chandra Pal @ Chandan, Nirmala Devi and Kanchan have been exonerated and they have not been charge-sheeted. The charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant, Balveer Singh and Rama Devi. It is further pointed out that co-accused Balveer Singh and Rama Devi have been granted bail by the concerned Court below vide order dated 17.05.2025. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The 3 BAIL No. 31416 of 2025 applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that as per the post mortem report of the deceased dated 24.03.2025, probable date of death of the deceased is about half to one day, as such, the deceased died in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2025 and at that time, the applicant was at home but he did not give information about her death. However, they could not dispute the other submissions as advanced on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The statement of landlady Smt. Kanchan, who first time went into the room after hearing sound of child’s crying, has clearly stated that at that time, the applicant was not at home but he had left for his duty. The applicant got information about the said incident through Smt. Kanchan’s husband Abhay Kumar. At the time of inquest, complainant and his other family members were very much present but they do not make allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant rather they have stated that the deceased died by committing suicide. I also find that co-accused Balveer Singh and Rama Devi have been granted bail as noted above. The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. However, it is relevant to mention that there is no dispute that the parameters for bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Section 117 and 118 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. 4 BAIL No. 31416 of 2025 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Narendra Pal 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 15, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad