Jabar Singh and Another v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashikant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42160 of 2023 (Jabar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Jabar Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father- in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the trial two witnesses namely Atar Singh as P.W.-1 and Arvind Kumar as P.W.-2 have been examined. It is submitted that P.W.-1 Atar Singh in his cross-examination has stated that the dead body of the deceased was taken by a tractor trolley from the house and as such she has received injuries on her body, paragraph 16 & Annexure-8 to the affidavit being the statement of P.W.-1 has been 2 BAIL No. 36058 of 2024 placed before the Court. It is submitted that the said fact is a new fact and looking to the same the injuries as received by the deceased are well explained which would go to show that there was no such injury on her body previously. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 and is in jail since 17.06.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on merits. It is submitted that bail of the applicant and co-accused Anita Devi has been rejected by the Trial Court concerned vide order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 2175 of 2023 (Jabar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that trial in the present matter is going on in which two witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that the injury as received by the deceased are in no manner postmortem injuries. It is submitted that as such the argument thus is without any substance.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

17.10.2023, the same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Jabar Singh and Anita Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah.

4. The FIR of the matter has been lodged on 16.06.2023 against the applicants and five other persons alleging therein that Sikha the daughter of the informant was married to Deepak Kumar the son of the applicants five years back. After one year of marriage, there was a demand of dowry by the accused persons due to which the deceased used to be physically and mentally tortured in spite of Rs. 5 lakhs being spent in the marriage and gifts of Rs. 50,000/- was given to them. On 15.06.2023 his daughter was assaulted and murdered. Information was given to him by neighbours after which he went there and found his daughter to be dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased Sikha. It is argued that the applicants were living separately from that of their 3 BAIL No. 36058 of 2024 son and daughter-in-law. Para 17 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. Further while placing para 18 of the affidavit it is argued that the deceased committed suicide as she was not happy with her matrimonial life. It is argued that there was never any demand of dowry by the applicants and other accused persons. It is further argued that during investigation, the names of Nisha Devi the nand, Shailendra Kumar the jeth, Soni Devi the jethani and Girand Kumar the devar of the deceased have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicants and other accused persons. It is argued that the applicants are suffering from several diseases. He further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and are in jail since 17.06.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Sikha. It is further argued that the deceased was found to have received two contusions and two abrasions on her body. On internal examinations there was laceration and congestion found of cerebral vessels and there was clotted blood present in the brain and on mid parietal region the underlying bone was fractured. The cause of death was opined as coma due to antemortem head injury. It is argued that the same does not in any manner go to show that the deceased committed suicide. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicants and as such the prayer for bail of the applicants be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the deceased Sikha was married with Deepak Kumar the son of the applicants five years ago. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. She was found to have received serious injuries on her head with fracture and hematoma of the brain. The cause of death is coma as a result of antemortem head injury. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

8. The deceased Smt. Shikha was found to have received the following injuries:- "1. Contusion 4x2 cm Right temporal region on Head.

2. Contusion 5x4 cm, Mid parietal region with underlying Bone fracture, with underlying Bone fracture.

3. Abrasion 4x1 cm Left pelvic region.

4. Abrasion 1x1 cm over Left knee joint Anterior Aspect."

9. The doctor further while examining the head of the deceased during postmortem found the meninges to be lacerated and congested. Further the brain was found to be congested and clotted blood was present. The cause of death was opined as coma due to antemortem head injury. The said injuries 4 BAIL No. 36058 of 2024 do not show that they are postmortem injuries in any manner. The said argument of learned counsel for the applicant thus does not at all appeal to the Court. The trial in the matter is going on. No fresh & new ground is made out in the present bail application.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 10, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashikant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42160 of 2023 (Jabar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Jabar Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father- in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the trial two witnesses namely Atar Singh as P.W.-1 and Arvind Kumar as P.W.-2 have been examined. It is submitted that P.W.-1 Atar Singh in his cross-examination has stated that the dead body of the deceased was taken by a tractor trolley from the house and as such she has received injuries on her body, paragraph 16 & Annexure-8 to the affidavit being the statement of P.W.-1 has been 2 BAIL No. 36058 of 2024 placed before the Court. It is submitted that the said fact is a new fact and looking to the same the injuries as received by the deceased are well explained which would go to show that there was no such injury on her body previously. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 and is in jail since 17.06.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on merits. It is submitted that bail of the applicant and co-accused Anita Devi has been rejected by the Trial Court concerned vide order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 2175 of 2023 (Jabar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that trial in the present matter is going on in which two witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that the injury as received by the deceased are in no manner postmortem injuries. It is submitted that as such the argument thus is without any substance.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

17.10.2023, the same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Jabar Singh and Anita Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah.

4. The FIR of the matter has been lodged on 16.06.2023 against the applicants and five other persons alleging therein that Sikha the daughter of the informant was married to Deepak Kumar the son of the applicants five years back. After one year of marriage, there was a demand of dowry by the accused persons due to which the deceased used to be physically and mentally tortured in spite of Rs. 5 lakhs being spent in the marriage and gifts of Rs. 50,000/- was given to them. On 15.06.2023 his daughter was assaulted and murdered. Information was given to him by neighbours after which he went there and found his daughter to be dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased Sikha. It is argued that the applicants were living separately from that of their 3 BAIL No. 36058 of 2024 son and daughter-in-law. Para 17 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. Further while placing para 18 of the affidavit it is argued that the deceased committed suicide as she was not happy with her matrimonial life. It is argued that there was never any demand of dowry by the applicants and other accused persons. It is further argued that during investigation, the names of Nisha Devi the nand, Shailendra Kumar the jeth, Soni Devi the jethani and Girand Kumar the devar of the deceased have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicants and other accused persons. It is argued that the applicants are suffering from several diseases. He further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and are in jail since 17.06.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Sikha. It is further argued that the deceased was found to have received two contusions and two abrasions on her body. On internal examinations there was laceration and congestion found of cerebral vessels and there was clotted blood present in the brain and on mid parietal region the underlying bone was fractured. The cause of death was opined as coma due to antemortem head injury. It is argued that the same does not in any manner go to show that the deceased committed suicide. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicants and as such the prayer for bail of the applicants be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the deceased Sikha was married with Deepak Kumar the son of the applicants five years ago. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. She was found to have received serious injuries on her head with fracture and hematoma of the brain. The cause of death is coma as a result of antemortem head injury. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

8. The deceased Smt. Shikha was found to have received the following injuries:- "1. Contusion 4x2 cm Right temporal region on Head.

2. Contusion 5x4 cm, Mid parietal region with underlying Bone fracture, with underlying Bone fracture.

3. Abrasion 4x1 cm Left pelvic region.

4. Abrasion 1x1 cm over Left knee joint Anterior Aspect."

9. The doctor further while examining the head of the deceased during postmortem found the meninges to be lacerated and congested. Further the brain was found to be congested and clotted blood was present. The cause of death was opined as coma due to antemortem head injury. The said injuries 4 BAIL No. 36058 of 2024 do not show that they are postmortem injuries in any manner. The said argument of learned counsel for the applicant thus does not at all appeal to the Court. The trial in the matter is going on. No fresh & new ground is made out in the present bail application.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 10, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad