State of U.P v. Party
Case Details
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused persons, which is false and against the evidence on record. It is pointed out that in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the complainant, who is mother of the deceased Kavita, was called by Kavita on 28.04.2025 at 12 O'clock in the night about her harassment whereas father of the deceased gave an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gazipur, District Fatehpur mentioning therein that he got information on 29.04.2025 that due to some unknown reasons, his daughter has committed suicide. Thereafter, police reached at the spot and inquest proceeding of dead body of the deceased was conducted. At that time, the applicant alongwith his son Keshan Lal (husband of deceased) and father as well as uncle of the deceased were very much present but they did not make any allegation against the applicant and his family members. Post mortem of the deceased was also conducted on the next date on 30.04.2025 and thereafter her dead body was cremated by the applicant and other family members. 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 applicant is languishing in jail since 24.06.2025 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 opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued 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 and except the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Inquest proceeding and cremation of dead body of the deceased were done in presence of complainant and the applicant alongwith husband of the deceased was also present. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.05.2025 after 10 days of the incident which took place on 28.04.2025 and there is no 3 BAIL No. 32543 of 2025 plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant and his family members were also present at the spot and also participated in the inquest proceeding, which shows natural conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is one of the relevant factor for considering bail. 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 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 to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. 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. Considering the 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 opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Chhatrapal 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:- 4 BAIL No. 32543 of 2025 (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 22, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused persons, which is false and against the evidence on record. It is pointed out that in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the complainant, who is mother of the deceased Kavita, was called by Kavita on 28.04.2025 at 12 O'clock in the night about her harassment whereas father of the deceased gave an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gazipur, District Fatehpur mentioning therein that he got information on 29.04.2025 that due to some unknown reasons, his daughter has committed suicide. Thereafter, police reached at the spot and inquest proceeding of dead body of the deceased was conducted. At that time, the applicant alongwith his son Keshan Lal (husband of deceased) and father as well as uncle of the deceased were very much present but they did not make any allegation against the applicant and his family members. Post mortem of the deceased was also conducted on the next date on 30.04.2025 and thereafter her dead body was cremated by the applicant and other family members. 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 applicant is languishing in jail since 24.06.2025 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 opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued 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 and except the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Inquest proceeding and cremation of dead body of the deceased were done in presence of complainant and the applicant alongwith husband of the deceased was also present. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.05.2025 after 10 days of the incident which took place on 28.04.2025 and there is no 3 BAIL No. 32543 of 2025 plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant and his family members were also present at the spot and also participated in the inquest proceeding, which shows natural conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is one of the relevant factor for considering bail. 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 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 to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. 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. Considering the 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 opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Chhatrapal 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:- 4 BAIL No. 32543 of 2025 (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 22, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad