Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31477 of 2025 Kunwarpal State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : : Anil Kumar G.A. Court No. - 66 1. List revised. HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Kunwarpal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 319 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 29.06.2025 by Raja Ram against Santosh Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Radha Devi, Kunwarpal, Gopal, Tarawati and Pradeep alleging therein that his daughter Deeksha was married to Shiv Kumar and Ameesha was married to Santosh Kumar on 21.04.2022 in which he had given gifts and dowry as per his status but the in-laws of his daughters were not happy with it and there was additional demand of dowry due to which they used to torture his daughters. He came to know of it and then he along with people of the locality and relatives went there to console him but the accused persons continued the torture to his daughters both physically and mentally. On 25.06.2025 there was a Terahvi Sanskar in the village in which the in-laws of Ameesha came there. They demanded Rs. 1 lakh from him to which he refused. Santosh then stated that he would now never come in the village. Informant had many times given money to his daughters. Previously the accused persons had threatened him and his son to be shot. The accused persons were demanding Rs. 5 lakh as dowry from his daughters. The accused persons then in conspiracy in the night on 27.06.2025 assaulted both his daughters in which his elder daughter Deeksha ran inside the room and locked it but the accused persons caught hold of Ameesha and murdered her. The incident was seen by Deeksha from the window of the room after which she became unconscious and after regaining consciousness she called her 2 BAIL No. 31477 of 2025 father and told about the incident. Report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that two daughters namely Deeksha and Ameesha were married to two brothers namely Shiv Kumar and Santosh Kumar respectively. It is submitted that out of them Ameesha is the deceased in the matter. It is submitted that Ameesha committed suicide and died which is also suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and one linear abrasion over left side of neck and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and as such the linear abrasion did not contribute to her death. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased Ameesha. It is submitted that common and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that co-accused Shiv Kumar (jeth), Gopal (devar), Tarawati (nand) and Pradeep (cousin brother of the husband) have been exonerated during investigation. It is submitted that Smt. Radha the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 30567 of 2025 (Smt. Radha Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been placed before the Court which is annexure 5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2025 which is already on record. It is submitted that Santosh Kumar the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since 04.07.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. It is submitted that Smt. Deeksha the elder daughter of the informant who is sister of the deceased Ameesha is the eye witness of the incident who stated of the implication of the applicant and other co- accused persons in the present matter and has assigned the role to the applicant. It is further submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court heard the present bail application on 25.09.2025 and finding that the bail granted to co-accused Smt. Radha was without considering the statement of Deeksha who is the sister of the deceased adjourned the matter and granted time to learned counsel for the applicant to prepare the matter. He has placed before the Court order dated 25.09.2025 of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under: "Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that co-accused Smt. Radha who is mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30567 of 2025, therefore, the applicant who is father-in-law of the deceased is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that complainant has two daughters, namely, Diksha and Amisha and both are married in the same family. Marriage of Diksha was solemnized 3 BAIL No. 31477 of 2025 with Shiv Kumar (son of the applicant), whereas marriage of Amisha (now deceased) was solemnized with Santosh Kumar (son of the applicant). Smt. Radha (mother-in-law) of the deceased has been granted bail without considering the statement of Diksha who is sister of the deceased and eye-witness of the incident. Put up this case as fresh on 13.10.2025 to enable the learned counsel for the applicant to prepare the case properly." 7. It is further submitted that since the order of co-accused Smt. Radha has not considered the fact that Smt. Deeksha the elder sister of the deceased is an eye witness of the incident, thus the said order cannot be considered to be an order of parity and as such the bail order of co- accused Smt. Radha has been placed which reads as under: "1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 319 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. There is no other injury sustained by the deceased person. 6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599, whereby it has been 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled by 4 BAIL No. 31477 of 2025 the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Smt. Radha, 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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." 8. It is submitted that as such there is no false implication of the applicant and the present bail application be rejected. 9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There are allegations against him. Daughters of the informant being Deeksha and Ameesha were married to two brothers namely Shiv Kumar and Santosh Kumar. Ameesha is the deceased in the present matter. Smt. Deeksha is an eye witness of the incident who was also assaulted along with Ameesha on the day of the incident after which she somehow ran from the said place and locked herself in a room but saw Smt. Ameesha being assaulted and murdered by the accused persons. She gave the version of being an ocular witness of the incident during investigation but the fact has not been considered in the order of co-accused Smt. Radha who has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the role of the applicant, the statement of Smt. Deeksha who is an eye witness of the incident, no ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Decision
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. October 13, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad