High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Ms. Shivani Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mukesh Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2024 in Case Crime No.0283 of 2024, under Sections 80(1), 85, 91 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Makhi, District- Unnao. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the entire family of the present applicant has been implicated allegation. During the course of the investigation one fact emerges that the marriage of the present applicant with the victim was a love marriage and they were living together happily. The present applicant is absolutely unaware as to why his wife committed suicide. At the time of committing suicide she was pregnant. On account of some trivial dispute which are possible between the husband and wife have taken this extreme steps. After completion of the investigation, all allegations against other family members were found false, therefore, their names have been deleted and chargesheet has been filed only against the present applicant. As per prosecution story, all accused persons have killed the victim and hanged her on the roof through Saree, when no incriminating material or evidence has been found against other co-accused persons then the present applicant, who is handicapped person having disability of 40% could have not hanged his wife on the roof through Saree. The cause of death is hanging and except the ligature marks around the neck of the deceased, which might be caused on account of hanging. There is one minor injury on the mid upper chest with lower part of the neck which also be caused on account of hanging. Since the marriage of the present applicant was love marriage therefore he could have not demanded any dowry from her wife or her family members. Since the family members of his wife were not happy for the love marriage, therefore, false and misconceived FIR has been lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Chargesheet has been filed. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has however opposed the aforesaid bail application but could dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the facts that after completion of the investigation, all allegations against other family members were found false, present applicant, who is handicapped person having disability of 40% could have not hanged his wife on the roof, the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant (Dinesh Kumar) 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 appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 229-A IPC/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 82 Cr.P.C./84 of 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 174-A IPC/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 313 Cr.P.C./351 of 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. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Ms. Shivani Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mukesh Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2024 in Case Crime No.0283 of 2024, under Sections 80(1), 85, 91 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Makhi, District- Unnao. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the entire family of the present applicant has been implicated allegation. During the course of the investigation one fact emerges that the marriage of the present applicant with the victim was a love marriage and they were living together happily. The present applicant is absolutely unaware as to why his wife committed suicide. At the time of committing suicide she was pregnant. On account of some trivial dispute which are possible between the husband and wife have taken this extreme steps. After completion of the investigation, all allegations against other family members were found false, therefore, their names have been deleted and chargesheet has been filed only against the present applicant. As per prosecution story, all accused persons have killed the victim and hanged her on the roof through Saree, when no incriminating material or evidence has been found against other co-accused persons then the present applicant, who is handicapped person having disability of 40% could have not hanged his wife on the roof through Saree. The cause of death is hanging and except the ligature marks around the neck of the deceased, which might be caused on account of hanging. There is one minor injury on the mid upper chest with lower part of the neck which also be caused on account of hanging. Since the marriage of the present applicant was love marriage therefore he could have not demanded any dowry from her wife or her family members. Since the family members of his wife were not happy for the love marriage, therefore, false and misconceived FIR has been lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Chargesheet has been filed. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has however opposed the aforesaid bail application but could dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the facts that after completion of the investigation, all allegations against other family members were found false, present applicant, who is handicapped person having disability of 40% could have not hanged his wife on the roof, the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant (Dinesh Kumar) 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 appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 229-A IPC/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 82 Cr.P.C./84 of 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 174-A IPC/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 313 Cr.P.C./351 of 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. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench