High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, assisted by Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 08.11.2024 in Case Crime No.750 of 2024, under Sections 108, 115 (2), 352 & 351 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station – P.G.I., District – Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant, who is Senior Law Officer in the Punjab National Bank, Corporate Office, Lucknow, has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which was lodged for the allegation of murder, so such FIR has been lodged under Sections 103 (1), 115 (2), 352 & 351 (2) of B.N.S. However, during investigation, no material or evidence has been found to suggest that the present applicant has committed the offence of murder and the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 108, 115 (2), 352 & 351 (2) of B.N.S. The deceased is wife of the applicant and informant is father of the deceased.

4. Sri Arun Sinha has submitted that in the impugned FIR, the allegation, particularly the allegation of murder, has been levelled on the basis of suspicion inasmuch as there was no eye witness of the offence in question. Sri Arun Sinha has submitted that at the time of incident in question, the present applicant was not present in the house and he came to know about the aforesaid incident after some time of the incident in question and he immediately rushed to the place of incident and called Security Guard of the building to do the needful to provide medical assistance managing the Ambulance. Sri Sinha has also submitted that the deceased was suffering from mental ailment and on account of such ailment, her behaviour was strange. Her treatment was going on and the applicant took his wife to the different Doctors time to time, who were expert in psychiatry. Some medical papers to that effect have been enclosed with the bail application. Sri Sinha has also shown the statements of some independent witnesses e.g. Security Guard of the building, neighbours as well as statements of the Doctors, who were treating the deceased to show that the deceased was a mental patient. Sri Sinha has also shown statement of the minor son of the deceased and the applicant, who is aged about 11 years, to show that the applicant was not present in the house on the date of incident, his behaviour with his wife was almost normal except some trivial dispute, which may likely take place between husband and wife and on the date of incident, the deceased had gone to the rooftop of the building and did not return. Some more statements have been shown to show that the present applicant had not instigated his wife to commit suicide but those statements and documents may be appreciated by the learned Trial Court.

5. Sri Sinha has submitted that prima facie, ingredients of Section 108 of B.N.S. are not attracted in this case inasmuch as there is no overt or positive act on the part of the present applicant to abet or instigate his wife to commit suicide inasmuch as she committed suicide on account of her mental ailment. He has also submitted that no circumstances have been shown by the prosecution to indicate that the deceased had got no other option except to commit suicide on account of ill behaviour of her husband. Though all those facts may be tested by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial. Since charge sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no apprehension that if the applicant comes out from jail, he shall influence any witness or material. Admittedly, during the course of the investigation, the applicant remained in jail/ judicial custody. Further submission is that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

6. Per contra, Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that behaviour of the present applicant with his wife (since deceased) was very rough and he used to create very bad situations, resultant thereof she had to call her parents to intervene so that her matrimonial life could be saved. He has further submitted that even the present applicant had filed one divorce suit before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19.03.2015 and the deceased filed an application for transfer of the suit at Lucknow. The applicant approached the Apex Court but he could not get any favourable order, therefore, he entered into compromise with his wife (since deceased). He has also stated that if the applicant was aware about the fact that his wife was a mental patient, he must have arranged some proper assistant in his house to look after her in his absence but no such steps have been taken by the applicant. He has also submitted that the present applicant created a very bad atmosphere in the house, more particularly in his matrimonial life, so the deceased was having no other option except to commit suicide. Therefore, he has submitted that ingredients of Section 108 of B.N.S. are very well attracted in the present case. Sri Tripathi has also stated that the deceased was not a mental patient, rather she has been shown to be a mental patient by the applicant having ulterior motive and extraneous design in his mind.

7. Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned AGA, has also stated the same thing and has requested that this bail application may be rejected.

8. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and without entering into merits of the issue, since the investigation has been completed, relevant material and evidences have been collected, charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

11. Before parting with, it is expected from the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, assisted by Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 08.11.2024 in Case Crime No.750 of 2024, under Sections 108, 115 (2), 352 & 351 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station – P.G.I., District – Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant, who is Senior Law Officer in the Punjab National Bank, Corporate Office, Lucknow, has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which was lodged for the allegation of murder, so such FIR has been lodged under Sections 103 (1), 115 (2), 352 & 351 (2) of B.N.S. However, during investigation, no material or evidence has been found to suggest that the present applicant has committed the offence of murder and the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 108, 115 (2), 352 & 351 (2) of B.N.S. The deceased is wife of the applicant and informant is father of the deceased.

4. Sri Arun Sinha has submitted that in the impugned FIR, the allegation, particularly the allegation of murder, has been levelled on the basis of suspicion inasmuch as there was no eye witness of the offence in question. Sri Arun Sinha has submitted that at the time of incident in question, the present applicant was not present in the house and he came to know about the aforesaid incident after some time of the incident in question and he immediately rushed to the place of incident and called Security Guard of the building to do the needful to provide medical assistance managing the Ambulance. Sri Sinha has also submitted that the deceased was suffering from mental ailment and on account of such ailment, her behaviour was strange. Her treatment was going on and the applicant took his wife to the different Doctors time to time, who were expert in psychiatry. Some medical papers to that effect have been enclosed with the bail application. Sri Sinha has also shown the statements of some independent witnesses e.g. Security Guard of the building, neighbours as well as statements of the Doctors, who were treating the deceased to show that the deceased was a mental patient. Sri Sinha has also shown statement of the minor son of the deceased and the applicant, who is aged about 11 years, to show that the applicant was not present in the house on the date of incident, his behaviour with his wife was almost normal except some trivial dispute, which may likely take place between husband and wife and on the date of incident, the deceased had gone to the rooftop of the building and did not return. Some more statements have been shown to show that the present applicant had not instigated his wife to commit suicide but those statements and documents may be appreciated by the learned Trial Court.

5. Sri Sinha has submitted that prima facie, ingredients of Section 108 of B.N.S. are not attracted in this case inasmuch as there is no overt or positive act on the part of the present applicant to abet or instigate his wife to commit suicide inasmuch as she committed suicide on account of her mental ailment. He has also submitted that no circumstances have been shown by the prosecution to indicate that the deceased had got no other option except to commit suicide on account of ill behaviour of her husband. Though all those facts may be tested by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial. Since charge sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no apprehension that if the applicant comes out from jail, he shall influence any witness or material. Admittedly, during the course of the investigation, the applicant remained in jail/ judicial custody. Further submission is that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

6. Per contra, Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that behaviour of the present applicant with his wife (since deceased) was very rough and he used to create very bad situations, resultant thereof she had to call her parents to intervene so that her matrimonial life could be saved. He has further submitted that even the present applicant had filed one divorce suit before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19.03.2015 and the deceased filed an application for transfer of the suit at Lucknow. The applicant approached the Apex Court but he could not get any favourable order, therefore, he entered into compromise with his wife (since deceased). He has also stated that if the applicant was aware about the fact that his wife was a mental patient, he must have arranged some proper assistant in his house to look after her in his absence but no such steps have been taken by the applicant. He has also submitted that the present applicant created a very bad atmosphere in the house, more particularly in his matrimonial life, so the deceased was having no other option except to commit suicide. Therefore, he has submitted that ingredients of Section 108 of B.N.S. are very well attracted in the present case. Sri Tripathi has also stated that the deceased was not a mental patient, rather she has been shown to be a mental patient by the applicant having ulterior motive and extraneous design in his mind.

7. Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned AGA, has also stated the same thing and has requested that this bail application may be rejected.

8. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and without entering into merits of the issue, since the investigation has been completed, relevant material and evidences have been collected, charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

11. Before parting with, it is expected from the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench