State of U.P v. Counsel for
Case Details
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant-Ramawati, who is mother of the deceased-Gunjaa got a first information report lodged on 09.06.2024 against Ravi and Sonkari, who are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively stating inter-alia that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Ravi son of Jagdish without dowry but after the marriage, they started beating and harassing her daughter due to dowry. On 08.06.2024, her elder daughter's son "mundan ceremony" was held, which was also attended by her daughter Gunjaa and her husband Ravi. During the ceremony, people were dancing and singing. After the ceremony got over at around 3:00 a.m. Ravi took Gunjaa to the house of his maternal uncle Mahendra to sleep which is situated in the nearhood. At about 06:30 in the morning when she went to open the door to wake her up, then door was opened. When she called from offside, Gunjaa did not respond. Then she went inside the room and found her daughter Gunjaa dead on bed. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely 2 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 implicated in this case. Much emphasis has been given by contending that on 08.06.2024, there was a mundan ceremony of son of the deceased's elder sister in her parental house, in which Gunjaa (deceased) had participated whereas applicant did not participate. The allegation of committing the murder of the deceased by throttling against the present applicant is false because on the date and time of the incident, presence of the applicant in the paternal home of deceased and at the house of maternal uncle of the applicant is doubtful. It is also submitted that the marriage of the deceased with the present applicant was a love marriage and without any dowry, therefore, there was no occasion for demand of dowry. Referring the F.I.R., it is further stated that in the F.I.R., father's name of the applicant is shown as Jagdish, whereas PW-1 who is complainant and mother of the deceased, in her statement recorded before the trial court, has stated that the father's name of the applicant is Samujh. On the basis of said discrepancies, it is further argued that Ravi son of Samujh is a different person and someone else has committed the murder of the deceased. Under the facts of the case, provisions of Section 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is not attracted against the present applicant, hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 21.06.2024 may be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand learned A.G.A., referring the statement of Mahendra, opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that Mahendra, who is maternal uncle of the applicant, in his statement under Section 180 of BNSS, has stated inter-alia that being nephew, Ravi often visits his house. On 08.06.2024, there was a mundan ceremony of Gautam's daughter and Poonam's son, which he and his wife also attended. His nephew Ravi (applicant) also came to his in-law's house with Gunjaa. In the night, Ravi along with Gunjaa came to his house and both of them went to sleep in a room. In the morning, he woke up and went to field to attend the call of nature. When he returned after sometime, he saw that there was a huge crowd at his house and his wife was nervous and was crying with Gautam's family. His wife told that she had woken up in the morning and was doing house hold chores as usual and at that time, Ravi came out of his room in hurry and started his motorcycle and started leaving. On asking where he was going, he went away without saying anything. He seemed terrified. The door where Ravi and Gunjaa were sleeping was ajar. 3 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 the statement dated 01.03.2025 of She opened and saw Gunjaa lying face down on the bed, un- moving. She was lying in dying state. She then ran away to Ravi's in-laws house and told every thing, then all of them came at the spot. Referring complainant/PW-1, who is mother of the deceased, it is further pointed out that she has supported the prosecution case and also identified and proved the photographs of her daughter and Ravi, which was taken at the time of their wedding in the Shiv Mandir. The said photograph has been exhibited before the trial court as paper no. 12 kha. Much emphasis has been given by contending that deceased Gunjaa was strangled to death by the applicant Ravi. The offence is heinous in nature. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the record, I find that:- i-The deceased died her unnatural death within a year of her marriage. The applicant being husband of the deceased is not only responsible for welfare of his wife but also under heavy onus to explain the cause of death. ii-Learned counsel for the applicant has come up with a stand that on 08.06.2024, applicant was not stayed with his wife Gunjaa in his maternal uncle's house but on the said plea, another question arises that why applicant did not lodge F.I.R. in the matter. In this regard, no plausible explanation has been given on behalf of the applicant. iii-As per post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. iv-On the body of the deceased, following five injuries were found:- (a) Contusion 8cm x 3cm on left side face, 3cm below from left ear. (b) Multiple abraded contusion in an area 7cm x 2cm on left anterior neck, on cutting haematoma present. (c) Multiple abraded contusion in an area 9cm x 4cm on mid of right anterior neck, on cutting haematoma present. 4 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 (d) Contusion 10cm x 4cm on anterior half of sagittal suture, on cutting scalp haematoma present, underneath blood clots present with congestion on membrane and brain. (e) Contusion 9cm x 3cm on right parietal eminence, on cutting scalp haemarome present, underneath blood clots present with congestion on membrane and brain. v-As per the prosecution case, the applicant leaving his wife alone at the spot, ran away which shows his unnatural conduct. vi-As per the statement of Smt. Ramawati, Gautam, Gyanti, Mahendra and Poonam, who are mother, father, maternal aunt, maternal uncle and sister of the deceased, the applicant along with his wife Gunjaa attended the mundan ceremony of son of deceased's sister on 08.06.2024 in his in-laws house and in the night, he stayed along with his wife Gunjaa in the house of his maternal uncle Mahendra. vii-Complainant Ramawati, who is mother of the deceased has been examined before the trial court as PW-1, in which she has supported the prosecution case. viii-Since the allegation of the prosecution and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court while considering the bail application of accused- applicant is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not effect the merits of the trial. ix-The Offence is heinous in nature. The trial of the applicant is proceeding. x-The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'X' vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has held that if offence is heinous in nature and trial of the accused is in progress, bail should not be granted. 7-In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant. 8-Accordingly, instant bail application of the applicant is rejected. 9-It is made clear that observations, if any made in this order is 5 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 confined to the issue of bail and shall not effect the merit of the case. 10-Trial Court is directed to made an endeavor to conclude the trial the applicant expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 11-Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court, concerned within a week's for information and compliance. September 23, 2025 Saurabh (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant-Ramawati, who is mother of the deceased-Gunjaa got a first information report lodged on 09.06.2024 against Ravi and Sonkari, who are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively stating inter-alia that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Ravi son of Jagdish without dowry but after the marriage, they started beating and harassing her daughter due to dowry. On 08.06.2024, her elder daughter's son "mundan ceremony" was held, which was also attended by her daughter Gunjaa and her husband Ravi. During the ceremony, people were dancing and singing. After the ceremony got over at around 3:00 a.m. Ravi took Gunjaa to the house of his maternal uncle Mahendra to sleep which is situated in the nearhood. At about 06:30 in the morning when she went to open the door to wake her up, then door was opened. When she called from offside, Gunjaa did not respond. Then she went inside the room and found her daughter Gunjaa dead on bed. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely 2 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 implicated in this case. Much emphasis has been given by contending that on 08.06.2024, there was a mundan ceremony of son of the deceased's elder sister in her parental house, in which Gunjaa (deceased) had participated whereas applicant did not participate. The allegation of committing the murder of the deceased by throttling against the present applicant is false because on the date and time of the incident, presence of the applicant in the paternal home of deceased and at the house of maternal uncle of the applicant is doubtful. It is also submitted that the marriage of the deceased with the present applicant was a love marriage and without any dowry, therefore, there was no occasion for demand of dowry. Referring the F.I.R., it is further stated that in the F.I.R., father's name of the applicant is shown as Jagdish, whereas PW-1 who is complainant and mother of the deceased, in her statement recorded before the trial court, has stated that the father's name of the applicant is Samujh. On the basis of said discrepancies, it is further argued that Ravi son of Samujh is a different person and someone else has committed the murder of the deceased. Under the facts of the case, provisions of Section 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is not attracted against the present applicant, hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 21.06.2024 may be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand learned A.G.A., referring the statement of Mahendra, opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that Mahendra, who is maternal uncle of the applicant, in his statement under Section 180 of BNSS, has stated inter-alia that being nephew, Ravi often visits his house. On 08.06.2024, there was a mundan ceremony of Gautam's daughter and Poonam's son, which he and his wife also attended. His nephew Ravi (applicant) also came to his in-law's house with Gunjaa. In the night, Ravi along with Gunjaa came to his house and both of them went to sleep in a room. In the morning, he woke up and went to field to attend the call of nature. When he returned after sometime, he saw that there was a huge crowd at his house and his wife was nervous and was crying with Gautam's family. His wife told that she had woken up in the morning and was doing house hold chores as usual and at that time, Ravi came out of his room in hurry and started his motorcycle and started leaving. On asking where he was going, he went away without saying anything. He seemed terrified. The door where Ravi and Gunjaa were sleeping was ajar. 3 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 the statement dated 01.03.2025 of She opened and saw Gunjaa lying face down on the bed, un- moving. She was lying in dying state. She then ran away to Ravi's in-laws house and told every thing, then all of them came at the spot. Referring complainant/PW-1, who is mother of the deceased, it is further pointed out that she has supported the prosecution case and also identified and proved the photographs of her daughter and Ravi, which was taken at the time of their wedding in the Shiv Mandir. The said photograph has been exhibited before the trial court as paper no. 12 kha. Much emphasis has been given by contending that deceased Gunjaa was strangled to death by the applicant Ravi. The offence is heinous in nature. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the record, I find that:- i-The deceased died her unnatural death within a year of her marriage. The applicant being husband of the deceased is not only responsible for welfare of his wife but also under heavy onus to explain the cause of death. ii-Learned counsel for the applicant has come up with a stand that on 08.06.2024, applicant was not stayed with his wife Gunjaa in his maternal uncle's house but on the said plea, another question arises that why applicant did not lodge F.I.R. in the matter. In this regard, no plausible explanation has been given on behalf of the applicant. iii-As per post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. iv-On the body of the deceased, following five injuries were found:- (a) Contusion 8cm x 3cm on left side face, 3cm below from left ear. (b) Multiple abraded contusion in an area 7cm x 2cm on left anterior neck, on cutting haematoma present. (c) Multiple abraded contusion in an area 9cm x 4cm on mid of right anterior neck, on cutting haematoma present. 4 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 (d) Contusion 10cm x 4cm on anterior half of sagittal suture, on cutting scalp haematoma present, underneath blood clots present with congestion on membrane and brain. (e) Contusion 9cm x 3cm on right parietal eminence, on cutting scalp haemarome present, underneath blood clots present with congestion on membrane and brain. v-As per the prosecution case, the applicant leaving his wife alone at the spot, ran away which shows his unnatural conduct. vi-As per the statement of Smt. Ramawati, Gautam, Gyanti, Mahendra and Poonam, who are mother, father, maternal aunt, maternal uncle and sister of the deceased, the applicant along with his wife Gunjaa attended the mundan ceremony of son of deceased's sister on 08.06.2024 in his in-laws house and in the night, he stayed along with his wife Gunjaa in the house of his maternal uncle Mahendra. vii-Complainant Ramawati, who is mother of the deceased has been examined before the trial court as PW-1, in which she has supported the prosecution case. viii-Since the allegation of the prosecution and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court while considering the bail application of accused- applicant is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not effect the merits of the trial. ix-The Offence is heinous in nature. The trial of the applicant is proceeding. x-The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'X' vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has held that if offence is heinous in nature and trial of the accused is in progress, bail should not be granted. 7-In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant. 8-Accordingly, instant bail application of the applicant is rejected. 9-It is made clear that observations, if any made in this order is 5 BAIL No. 32629 of 2025 confined to the issue of bail and shall not effect the merit of the case. 10-Trial Court is directed to made an endeavor to conclude the trial the applicant expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 11-Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court, concerned within a week's for information and compliance. September 23, 2025 Saurabh (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad