High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 3.1.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 687 of 2023. The said order is extracted herein below:- "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.396 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Tadiyawan, District Hardoi.

3. Prosecution case is that sister of the informant Arti was married with accused applicant Rajeev three years ago. In the marriage dowry was given according to the capacity by the family members of the deceased. One motor cycle and several other articles were given in the marriage. The accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and in the marriage itself a golden chain and one lakh rupees cash was demanded. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the accused persons started giving mental and physical cruelty to the deceased. Whenever the deceased came to her parent's house, she told about mental and physical cruelty meted out to her. On 27/28.08.2022 due to demand of dowry, all the accused persons have beaten the deceased and by pouring kerosene oil have burnt her. She was four months' pregnant. In the morning on 28.08.2022 as soon as the informant and his family members knew about the incident they went to her place where they were informed that the deceased was taken to the district hospital in a serious condition from there she was referred to Lucknow. She told them that due to demand of dowry, she was beaten and has been burnt by pouring kerosene oil. She remained under treatment in the Medical College, Lucknow and during treatment on 01.09.2022 in the morning at 12 o'clock she died.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged after delay. He was not present in the house at the time of incident. No dowry has been demanded by him neither the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.

5. On the contrary learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has submitted that accused persons including the applicant were not satisfied with the dowry given and had demanded additional golden chain and one lakh rupees cash and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, the deceased had been killed who was four months pregnant. He further submits that deceased died within three years of marriage in most unnatural circumstance. She was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry soon before her death. Applicant is husband and thus, bail application is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is not disputed that the deceased died within three years of marriage; she died in most unnatural circumstance; post mortem reveals that she died due to septicemia on account of deep septic burnt all over the body; she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death relating to demand of dowry and its a heinous offence, thus, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail hence, the bail application is rejected.

8. However, learned court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order." Learned counsel for the applicant presses this application on the basis of fresh grounds by submitting that the PW-1, complainant has not supported the prosecution case in his cross- examination and the other fact witness i.e., PW-2 has also given a different version. There is no fact witness to be examined. It is submitted that even the formal witness has been examined. There is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.9.2022. The trial is going on at a snail's pace. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the statement of the fact witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-2, the long period of incarceration gone into by the applicant so also the fact that the fact witnesses have been examined; there appears to be no chance to tampering the prosecution evidence; the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 25.9.2022 as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Rajeev involved in Case Crime No. 396 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Tadiyawan, District- Hardoi, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 3.1.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 687 of 2023. The said order is extracted herein below:- "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.396 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Tadiyawan, District Hardoi.

3. Prosecution case is that sister of the informant Arti was married with accused applicant Rajeev three years ago. In the marriage dowry was given according to the capacity by the family members of the deceased. One motor cycle and several other articles were given in the marriage. The accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and in the marriage itself a golden chain and one lakh rupees cash was demanded. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the accused persons started giving mental and physical cruelty to the deceased. Whenever the deceased came to her parent's house, she told about mental and physical cruelty meted out to her. On 27/28.08.2022 due to demand of dowry, all the accused persons have beaten the deceased and by pouring kerosene oil have burnt her. She was four months' pregnant. In the morning on 28.08.2022 as soon as the informant and his family members knew about the incident they went to her place where they were informed that the deceased was taken to the district hospital in a serious condition from there she was referred to Lucknow. She told them that due to demand of dowry, she was beaten and has been burnt by pouring kerosene oil. She remained under treatment in the Medical College, Lucknow and during treatment on 01.09.2022 in the morning at 12 o'clock she died.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged after delay. He was not present in the house at the time of incident. No dowry has been demanded by him neither the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.

5. On the contrary learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has submitted that accused persons including the applicant were not satisfied with the dowry given and had demanded additional golden chain and one lakh rupees cash and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, the deceased had been killed who was four months pregnant. He further submits that deceased died within three years of marriage in most unnatural circumstance. She was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry soon before her death. Applicant is husband and thus, bail application is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is not disputed that the deceased died within three years of marriage; she died in most unnatural circumstance; post mortem reveals that she died due to septicemia on account of deep septic burnt all over the body; she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death relating to demand of dowry and its a heinous offence, thus, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail hence, the bail application is rejected.

8. However, learned court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order." Learned counsel for the applicant presses this application on the basis of fresh grounds by submitting that the PW-1, complainant has not supported the prosecution case in his cross- examination and the other fact witness i.e., PW-2 has also given a different version. There is no fact witness to be examined. It is submitted that even the formal witness has been examined. There is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.9.2022. The trial is going on at a snail's pace. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the statement of the fact witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-2, the long period of incarceration gone into by the applicant so also the fact that the fact witnesses have been examined; there appears to be no chance to tampering the prosecution evidence; the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 25.9.2022 as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Rajeev involved in Case Crime No. 396 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Tadiyawan, District- Hardoi, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench