State of U.P v. Party
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant who is mother of deceased-Durga got a first information report lodged on 17.05.2025 against Abhishek (applicant), Ved Prakash, Kanti Devi, Tanu, Raja, Ravi and Archana alias Kallo, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and aunt-in-law (बुआ सास) of the deceased respectively stating inter alia that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the applicant two years back and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and there was consistent demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the 2 BAIL No. 32042 of 2025 side of the accused. On 17.05.2025 at 9:45 A.M. her daughter was done to death by the accused persons. It is argued by learned counsel fro the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is pointed out that marriage of the applicant with the deceased was love marriage, hence there was no question of demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution. It is also pointed out that houses of both the parties are in front of each other. General and omnibus allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant as well as all the other accused persons without any material evidence on record. Referring the medical examination report/Ultrasound report of the deceased it is also pointed out that two polyps of 9 x 6 mm and 8 x 5 mm were found in endocervical region of the deceased, due to which deceased was not able to deliver child. On account of said reason, the deceased was under depression and therefore, she committed suicide. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant languishing jail since
20.05.2025 having no criminal antecedent and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of first information report but they could not dispute the ultrasound report of the deceased. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per postmortem report of the deceased cause of death of the deceased is antemortem hanging and except the ligature mark no other 3 BAIL No. 32042 of 2025 injury was found on her body. It is also admitted fact that marriage of applicant with the deceased was love marriage and deceased was issueless and under medical treatment since 19.11.2023, who committed suicide on 17.05.2025. Here it is also relevant to mention that the parameters for considering the 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 Sections 117 and 118 of Bharatiya 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 to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. In view of the above, 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 the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Abhishek, 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: 4 BAIL No. 32042 of 2025 (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 22, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) KASHIFA KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant who is mother of deceased-Durga got a first information report lodged on 17.05.2025 against Abhishek (applicant), Ved Prakash, Kanti Devi, Tanu, Raja, Ravi and Archana alias Kallo, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and aunt-in-law (बुआ सास) of the deceased respectively stating inter alia that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the applicant two years back and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and there was consistent demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the 2 BAIL No. 32042 of 2025 side of the accused. On 17.05.2025 at 9:45 A.M. her daughter was done to death by the accused persons. It is argued by learned counsel fro the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is pointed out that marriage of the applicant with the deceased was love marriage, hence there was no question of demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution. It is also pointed out that houses of both the parties are in front of each other. General and omnibus allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant as well as all the other accused persons without any material evidence on record. Referring the medical examination report/Ultrasound report of the deceased it is also pointed out that two polyps of 9 x 6 mm and 8 x 5 mm were found in endocervical region of the deceased, due to which deceased was not able to deliver child. On account of said reason, the deceased was under depression and therefore, she committed suicide. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant languishing jail since
20.05.2025 having no criminal antecedent and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of first information report but they could not dispute the ultrasound report of the deceased. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per postmortem report of the deceased cause of death of the deceased is antemortem hanging and except the ligature mark no other 3 BAIL No. 32042 of 2025 injury was found on her body. It is also admitted fact that marriage of applicant with the deceased was love marriage and deceased was issueless and under medical treatment since 19.11.2023, who committed suicide on 17.05.2025. Here it is also relevant to mention that the parameters for considering the 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 Sections 117 and 118 of Bharatiya 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 to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. In view of the above, 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 the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Abhishek, 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: 4 BAIL No. 32042 of 2025 (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 22, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) KASHIFA KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad