High Court · 2025

applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bargadwa, District Maharajganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 01.08.2024 against applicant and his family members and according to the F.I.R., marriage of the applicant was performed with the daughter of the informant in the month of April, 2019 and after solemnization of the marriage, applicant and his family members tortured her for demand of Rs.3,00,000/- and a golden chain and on 24.07.2024, they due to non-fulfillment of their demand, badly beaten her and thereafter they have taken her to the hospital. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that at the time of incident, deceased was having pregnancy of four months and in the hospital she died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is husband of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith his other family members.

6. He further submits that actually deceased i.e. wife of the applicant used to pressurize him to go to abroad for earning more money as she was highly possessive about education and good upbringing of her daughter but applicant, who did the work of barber in the village, was not ready to go to abroad and only due to this reason, very often dispute arose between husband and wife and on the date of incident again dispute arose in this regard and thereafter she hanged herself and died. He further submits, immediately after the incident, applicant rushed her to the hospital and during treatment after four days i.e. on 28.07.2024 she died.

7. He further submits that even it is evident from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation that after the incident, applicant side has taken to the deceased to the hospital.

8. He further submits that however, the incident is said to have taken place on 24.07.2024 but inspite of that FIR of the present case was lodged on 01.08.2024 i.e. after eight days and this delay in lodging the FIR clearly suggests that actually it is not a case of dowry death and after several days, on the basis of false allegation, FIR of the present case has been lodged.

9. He further submits that post-mortem report of the deceased also suggests that she died due to hanging.

10. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since

15.08.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that wife of the applicant died under abnormal circumstances within six years of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after eight days of the incident.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that post-mortem report suggests that deceased died due to hanging and from the record, it reflects that after the incident, applicant side has taken her to the hospital where she was admitted but died after four days.

13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within six years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged after eight days of the incident.

15. Further, post-mortem report suggests that deceased died due to hanging, therefore, prima-facie it appears to be a case of suicidal death and reason of suicide given by applicant in the rejoinder affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

16. Further, from the record, it reflects that immediately after the incident, applicant side has taken the deceased to the hospital where she was admitted and during treatment after four days i.e. on 28.07.2024 she died and prima-facie, this fact shows bona-fide on the part of the applicant side.

17. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.08.2024.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Sugreem @ Sugreev, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. 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 :- 8.1.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bargadwa, District Maharajganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 01.08.2024 against applicant and his family members and according to the F.I.R., marriage of the applicant was performed with the daughter of the informant in the month of April, 2019 and after solemnization of the marriage, applicant and his family members tortured her for demand of Rs.3,00,000/- and a golden chain and on 24.07.2024, they due to non-fulfillment of their demand, badly beaten her and thereafter they have taken her to the hospital. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that at the time of incident, deceased was having pregnancy of four months and in the hospital she died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is husband of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith his other family members.

6. He further submits that actually deceased i.e. wife of the applicant used to pressurize him to go to abroad for earning more money as she was highly possessive about education and good upbringing of her daughter but applicant, who did the work of barber in the village, was not ready to go to abroad and only due to this reason, very often dispute arose between husband and wife and on the date of incident again dispute arose in this regard and thereafter she hanged herself and died. He further submits, immediately after the incident, applicant rushed her to the hospital and during treatment after four days i.e. on 28.07.2024 she died.

7. He further submits that even it is evident from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation that after the incident, applicant side has taken to the deceased to the hospital.

8. He further submits that however, the incident is said to have taken place on 24.07.2024 but inspite of that FIR of the present case was lodged on 01.08.2024 i.e. after eight days and this delay in lodging the FIR clearly suggests that actually it is not a case of dowry death and after several days, on the basis of false allegation, FIR of the present case has been lodged.

9. He further submits that post-mortem report of the deceased also suggests that she died due to hanging.

10. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since

15.08.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that wife of the applicant died under abnormal circumstances within six years of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after eight days of the incident.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that post-mortem report suggests that deceased died due to hanging and from the record, it reflects that after the incident, applicant side has taken her to the hospital where she was admitted but died after four days.

13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within six years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged after eight days of the incident.

15. Further, post-mortem report suggests that deceased died due to hanging, therefore, prima-facie it appears to be a case of suicidal death and reason of suicide given by applicant in the rejoinder affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

16. Further, from the record, it reflects that immediately after the incident, applicant side has taken the deceased to the hospital where she was admitted and during treatment after four days i.e. on 28.07.2024 she died and prima-facie, this fact shows bona-fide on the part of the applicant side.

17. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.08.2024.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Sugreem @ Sugreev, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. 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 :- 8.1.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad