The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.233 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bilari, District- Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 29.4.2021, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakh and a Bolero car as dowry, thereby led her to death on 8.6.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offecne. The deceased had committed suicide out of depression. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has to take care of his daughter born out of the said wedlock as she was given in possession of neighbour and even the said neighbour Poonam has stated that she would hand over the child to applicant only and not to the parents of the applicant.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.6.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is the main accused person and the deceased had expired within the precincts of his house. The FIR is prompt as it was instituted the same night at 09:38 p.m. and the trial is going on, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 31.7.2025, two prosecution witnesses have been examined to date.

10. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

11. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974 the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant coupled by the fact that two witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

13. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.233 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bilari, District- Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 29.4.2021, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakh and a Bolero car as dowry, thereby led her to death on 8.6.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offecne. The deceased had committed suicide out of depression. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has to take care of his daughter born out of the said wedlock as she was given in possession of neighbour and even the said neighbour Poonam has stated that she would hand over the child to applicant only and not to the parents of the applicant.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.6.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is the main accused person and the deceased had expired within the precincts of his house. The FIR is prompt as it was instituted the same night at 09:38 p.m. and the trial is going on, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 31.7.2025, two prosecution witnesses have been examined to date.

10. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

11. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974 the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant coupled by the fact that two witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

13. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad