High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Kapil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru Its Secratary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav,Manish Kumar Kashyap,Rajdeep Singh,V.P. Singh Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- Saurabh Tripathi,G.A.,Lal Chandra Mishra Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. The instant matter has been nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

2. Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 436 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.09.2022 against applicant and his family members and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 26.06.2020 and after marriage applicant and his family members used to torture her for demand of Rs. 5 lakhs and four wheeler and on 23.09.2022 applicant gave an information to son-in-law of the elder brother of the informant that his daughter has hanged herself. As per FIR due to want of dowry applicant and his family members committed the murder of the daughter of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is however husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, applicant and his wife resided separately in another house on rent but unfortunately some matrimonial dispute arose between both of them and due to that reason their relationship became strained and only due to this reason his wife i.e. deceased committed suicide.

7. He further submits, post mortem report also suggests that deceased died due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging and her hyoid bone was found intact.

8. He further submits, however, from the post mortem report it also reflects, apart from the ligature mark deceased also sustained two injuries but both were minor contusions on non vital parts and it appears, while she was trying to commit suicide then in the process she sustained these minor contusions.

9. He further submits, post mortem report clearly indicates, it is not a case of homicidal death rather it is case of suicidal death.

10. He further submits, immediately after the incident applicant not only informed the informant side but also taken the deceased to the hospital and this fact is evident from G.D. entry of the case dated 23.09.2022, which has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit dated 08.06.2025. He further submits, from the G.D. entry it reflects, Pharmacist Trilok Chand of the hospital informed the police that deceased was taken to the hospital by the applicant.

11. He further submits, even when the statement of S.I. Hari Om Verma was recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation then he also reiterated the version of the Pharmacist and his statement has also been annexed along with supplementary affidavit dated 08.06.2025, therefore, these facts indicate the bona fide on the part of the applicant.

12. He further submits, however, earlier co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the bail application of father-in-law of the deceased namely Veerpal but when he approached the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2024 then Apex Court was pleased to enlarged him on bail considering his period of incarceration, which was 01 year and 02 months.

13. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.09.2022 i.e. for last more than two and half years. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he used to torture her for want of Rs. 5 lakhs and four wheeler along with his family members and his wife died within two years of her marriage under abnormal circumstance.

15. They further submitted that from the post mortem report it reflects, apart from the ligature mark deceased sustained two contusions too. They further submitted that applicant was neither present at the time of inquest nor he participated in the funeral. They further submitted that considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased he does not deserve bail, therefore, instant bail application should be dismissed.

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

17. Applicant is however husband of the deceased and it appears, his wife died under abnormal circumstances within two years of her marriage and there is also demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and four wheeler but post mortem prima facie suggests that it is a case of suicidal death.

18. Further, however, as per post mortem report apart from the ligature mark deceased also sustained two contusions but both contusions were minor and were on non vital part and considering the seat of these contusions, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that in the process of commission of suicide she sustained these minor contusions cannot be ruled out.

19. Further, record suggests that immediately after the incident applicant not only informed the informant through son-in-law of his elder brother but he also taken the deceased to the hospital. These facts shows his bona fide.

20. Further, however, co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the bail application of co-accused Veerpal, who was father-in-law of the deceased but when he challenged the bail rejection order before the Apex Court then the Apex Court enlarged him on bail considering his incarceration of 01 years 02 months and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 24.09.2022 i.e. for last more than two and half years. Further, he is not having any criminal history.

21. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Kapil Kumar 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 10.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Kapil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru Its Secratary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav,Manish Kumar Kashyap,Rajdeep Singh,V.P. Singh Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- Saurabh Tripathi,G.A.,Lal Chandra Mishra Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. The instant matter has been nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

2. Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 436 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.09.2022 against applicant and his family members and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 26.06.2020 and after marriage applicant and his family members used to torture her for demand of Rs. 5 lakhs and four wheeler and on 23.09.2022 applicant gave an information to son-in-law of the elder brother of the informant that his daughter has hanged herself. As per FIR due to want of dowry applicant and his family members committed the murder of the daughter of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is however husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, applicant and his wife resided separately in another house on rent but unfortunately some matrimonial dispute arose between both of them and due to that reason their relationship became strained and only due to this reason his wife i.e. deceased committed suicide.

7. He further submits, post mortem report also suggests that deceased died due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging and her hyoid bone was found intact.

8. He further submits, however, from the post mortem report it also reflects, apart from the ligature mark deceased also sustained two injuries but both were minor contusions on non vital parts and it appears, while she was trying to commit suicide then in the process she sustained these minor contusions.

9. He further submits, post mortem report clearly indicates, it is not a case of homicidal death rather it is case of suicidal death.

10. He further submits, immediately after the incident applicant not only informed the informant side but also taken the deceased to the hospital and this fact is evident from G.D. entry of the case dated 23.09.2022, which has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit dated 08.06.2025. He further submits, from the G.D. entry it reflects, Pharmacist Trilok Chand of the hospital informed the police that deceased was taken to the hospital by the applicant.

11. He further submits, even when the statement of S.I. Hari Om Verma was recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation then he also reiterated the version of the Pharmacist and his statement has also been annexed along with supplementary affidavit dated 08.06.2025, therefore, these facts indicate the bona fide on the part of the applicant.

12. He further submits, however, earlier co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the bail application of father-in-law of the deceased namely Veerpal but when he approached the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2024 then Apex Court was pleased to enlarged him on bail considering his period of incarceration, which was 01 year and 02 months.

13. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.09.2022 i.e. for last more than two and half years. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he used to torture her for want of Rs. 5 lakhs and four wheeler along with his family members and his wife died within two years of her marriage under abnormal circumstance.

15. They further submitted that from the post mortem report it reflects, apart from the ligature mark deceased sustained two contusions too. They further submitted that applicant was neither present at the time of inquest nor he participated in the funeral. They further submitted that considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased he does not deserve bail, therefore, instant bail application should be dismissed.

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

17. Applicant is however husband of the deceased and it appears, his wife died under abnormal circumstances within two years of her marriage and there is also demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and four wheeler but post mortem prima facie suggests that it is a case of suicidal death.

18. Further, however, as per post mortem report apart from the ligature mark deceased also sustained two contusions but both contusions were minor and were on non vital part and considering the seat of these contusions, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that in the process of commission of suicide she sustained these minor contusions cannot be ruled out.

19. Further, record suggests that immediately after the incident applicant not only informed the informant through son-in-law of his elder brother but he also taken the deceased to the hospital. These facts shows his bona fide.

20. Further, however, co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the bail application of co-accused Veerpal, who was father-in-law of the deceased but when he challenged the bail rejection order before the Apex Court then the Apex Court enlarged him on bail considering his incarceration of 01 years 02 months and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 24.09.2022 i.e. for last more than two and half years. Further, he is not having any criminal history.

21. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Kapil Kumar 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 10.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad