State of U.P v. Party

Heard Mr. Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. By means of this bail application, applicant Mukesh, who is involved in Session Case No. 514 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 312 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kotwali Karvi, district Chitrakoot, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Ramashankar Bhujwa, who is father of the deceased, got an F.I.R. lodged on 10.06.2024 against Mukesh (applicant), Shalini, Chunni and Anil, who are husband, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased, respectively, stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter Ranjana was solemnized with the applicant Mukesh two years back. In the marriage, sufficient dowry and household articles were given as per his capacity but after marriage, his daughter's in-laws started harassing in her matrimonial home and there was consistent demand of Rs. 2 lacs and 02 gold chains in dowry. On 02.06.2024, his daughter made a phone call that accused persons are beating her and after two days, he came to know from the uncle of the applicant that his daughter is admitted in Swaroop Rani Hospital, Prayagraj. When he reached there, he found that she was lying on bed with oxygen support. 2 BAIL No. 33265 of 2025 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 and omnibus allegations of demand of dowry have been levelled against all the accused persons, which is false and against the evidence on record. It is next submitted that in fact, at the time of incident, the deceased was having pregnancy of about 7-8 months and she had received simple head injury due to her felling from stairs. Thereafter, she was immediately taken to District Hospital, Karvi, Chitrakoot and further she was admitted in Swaroop Rani Hopsital, Prayagraj. The information about the said incident was given to her parents, on which they reached at the hospital and at that time, the deceased was alive and was under medical treatment. Later on, she died on 05.06.2024. The ward body of the hospital gave information to the police and thereafter inquest proceeding was conducted and the applicant has participated in the said proceeding and he is also one of the panch witnesses. After inquest proceeding, post mortem of the deceased was also conducted, in which 10 stitches wounds of 13 cm on left side of parietal to vertex region of head was found and thereafter body of the deceased was cremated by the applicant and his family members but till that time, no complaint was made by the parents of the deceased. Later on, in order to settle his personal score, the complainant got the F.I.R. lodged after five days on 10.06.2024 and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. 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 14.06.2024 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 before the trial Court, statement of the complainant Ramashankar has been recorded as PW-1 and from perusal of the same, it is clear that complainant's side were very much present in the hospital during the treatment of the 3 BAIL No. 33265 of 2025 deceased. The complainant in his cross-examination has stated inter alia that he did not spend anything on his daughter's treatment. He never filed any complaint with police against his daughter's in-laws and he did not hold any panchayat in this regard. The stairs in the house of Mukesh are cemented and have pointed edges. The steepness of the stairs meant that anyone climbing with their eye closed could easily fall. From the statement of PW-1, it is also clear that injury which was found on the head of the deceased may occur on felling down from stairs. It is also not in dispute that the applicant tried his best to provide medical aid to his wife and to save her life but she could not survive, which shows natural conduct of the applicant and in-laws of the deceased, which is also 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 Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 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 Mukesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case 4 BAIL No. 33265 of 2025 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 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 25, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. By means of this bail application, applicant Mukesh, who is involved in Session Case No. 514 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 312 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kotwali Karvi, district Chitrakoot, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Ramashankar Bhujwa, who is father of the deceased, got an F.I.R. lodged on 10.06.2024 against Mukesh (applicant), Shalini, Chunni and Anil, who are husband, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased, respectively, stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter Ranjana was solemnized with the applicant Mukesh two years back. In the marriage, sufficient dowry and household articles were given as per his capacity but after marriage, his daughter's in-laws started harassing in her matrimonial home and there was consistent demand of Rs. 2 lacs and 02 gold chains in dowry. On 02.06.2024, his daughter made a phone call that accused persons are beating her and after two days, he came to know from the uncle of the applicant that his daughter is admitted in Swaroop Rani Hospital, Prayagraj. When he reached there, he found that she was lying on bed with oxygen support. 2 BAIL No. 33265 of 2025 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 and omnibus allegations of demand of dowry have been levelled against all the accused persons, which is false and against the evidence on record. It is next submitted that in fact, at the time of incident, the deceased was having pregnancy of about 7-8 months and she had received simple head injury due to her felling from stairs. Thereafter, she was immediately taken to District Hospital, Karvi, Chitrakoot and further she was admitted in Swaroop Rani Hopsital, Prayagraj. The information about the said incident was given to her parents, on which they reached at the hospital and at that time, the deceased was alive and was under medical treatment. Later on, she died on 05.06.2024. The ward body of the hospital gave information to the police and thereafter inquest proceeding was conducted and the applicant has participated in the said proceeding and he is also one of the panch witnesses. After inquest proceeding, post mortem of the deceased was also conducted, in which 10 stitches wounds of 13 cm on left side of parietal to vertex region of head was found and thereafter body of the deceased was cremated by the applicant and his family members but till that time, no complaint was made by the parents of the deceased. Later on, in order to settle his personal score, the complainant got the F.I.R. lodged after five days on 10.06.2024 and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. 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 14.06.2024 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 before the trial Court, statement of the complainant Ramashankar has been recorded as PW-1 and from perusal of the same, it is clear that complainant's side were very much present in the hospital during the treatment of the 3 BAIL No. 33265 of 2025 deceased. The complainant in his cross-examination has stated inter alia that he did not spend anything on his daughter's treatment. He never filed any complaint with police against his daughter's in-laws and he did not hold any panchayat in this regard. The stairs in the house of Mukesh are cemented and have pointed edges. The steepness of the stairs meant that anyone climbing with their eye closed could easily fall. From the statement of PW-1, it is also clear that injury which was found on the head of the deceased may occur on felling down from stairs. It is also not in dispute that the applicant tried his best to provide medical aid to his wife and to save her life but she could not survive, which shows natural conduct of the applicant and in-laws of the deceased, which is also 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 Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 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 Mukesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case 4 BAIL No. 33265 of 2025 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 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 25, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad