Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32987 of 2025 Durvesh Kumar State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Noor Muhammad, Yogesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Srivastava Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. By means of this bail application, applicant Durvesh Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80 BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kaimganj, district Farrukhabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the deceased Rajni, got an F.I.R. lodged on 22.02.2025 against the applicant Durvesh, Prahlad, Mukesh and Akash, who are husband, father-in-law, brothers-in-law of the deceased, respectively, stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter Rajni was solemnized on 18.04.2018 with the applicant Durvesh. After three years of marriage, accused persons started demanding Rs. 2 lacs and on non-fulfillment of their demand, his daughter was done to death on 22.02.2025 in her matrimonial home. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused persons, which is false and against the 2 BAIL No. 32987 of 2025 evidence on record. A written information about the unfortunate incident dated 22.02.2025 was immediately given by the applicant to the police, on which the police came at the spot and information was also given to the parents of the deceased by Usha wife of Mulayam Singh, who is relative of the applicant, on which the complainant also reached alongwith his wife at the matrimonial home of his daughter. At the time of inquest proceeding, the complainant and the applicant both were present and they are also the witnesses of the inquest proceeding. All the witnesses were of the opinion that the deceased died by committing suicide. Much emphasis has been given by contending that at the time of inquest proceeding, no complaint was made by the complainant against the applicant and his family members, but later on, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 22.02.2025 on the false and concocted allegations in order to settle his personal score. 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 25.02.2025 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 no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. 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 3 BAIL No. 32987 of 2025 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 Durvesh Kumar 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 4 BAIL No. 32987 of 2025 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 24, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad