High Court · 2025

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR No. 331 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the cause of death of the deceased, as is mentioned in the postmortem report, is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and there is no ante-moretem injury, except apart slight bluish over the eye-lid and that might be caused with the rope. He next submits that it is the applicant, who after the hanging, informed the family members of the deceased and he was also present during the course of inquest which is evident from the inquest report. He submits that had it been a case that the applicant was involved in committing the murder of the deceased, certainly he would have fled away from the place of occurrence and his presence over there as well as information given by him to the family members of the deceased indicates that it is not the informant who has committed offence but under the sudden provocation, she has committed suicide. Further submission is that except apart the fact that the incident had taken place inside the house of the applicant, there was no other cogent piece of evidence which could connect the applicant with the offence. He next added that the applicant never tortured the deceased, as there was no complaint within the period of 5 years of the marriage and further there was no demand of dowry ever made by him or his family members. He next submitted that the Investigating Officer without properly investigating into the matter and on superfluous evidences, filed the chargesheet and the applicant, who being the innocent, has been roped in the criminal case. Next submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and there are two cases criminal history of the applicant which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 03.08.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is the husband and he was involved in committing the offence, as the crime has been committed inside the house of the applicant and it is the applicant who could explain the same, for which he has no explanation at all. He also added that the applicant has two cases criminal history and there is ample evidence against him and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that earlier there was no complaint with respect to torturing the deceased for demand of dowry and further the incident took place after 5 years of the marriage; this Court has noticed that there is no ante-mortem injury except apart one superfluous injury which is not explained by the doctor in the postmortem report; further the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 03.08.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Hitesh @ Mohit involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR No. 331 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the cause of death of the deceased, as is mentioned in the postmortem report, is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and there is no ante-moretem injury, except apart slight bluish over the eye-lid and that might be caused with the rope. He next submits that it is the applicant, who after the hanging, informed the family members of the deceased and he was also present during the course of inquest which is evident from the inquest report. He submits that had it been a case that the applicant was involved in committing the murder of the deceased, certainly he would have fled away from the place of occurrence and his presence over there as well as information given by him to the family members of the deceased indicates that it is not the informant who has committed offence but under the sudden provocation, she has committed suicide. Further submission is that except apart the fact that the incident had taken place inside the house of the applicant, there was no other cogent piece of evidence which could connect the applicant with the offence. He next added that the applicant never tortured the deceased, as there was no complaint within the period of 5 years of the marriage and further there was no demand of dowry ever made by him or his family members. He next submitted that the Investigating Officer without properly investigating into the matter and on superfluous evidences, filed the chargesheet and the applicant, who being the innocent, has been roped in the criminal case. Next submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and there are two cases criminal history of the applicant which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 03.08.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is the husband and he was involved in committing the offence, as the crime has been committed inside the house of the applicant and it is the applicant who could explain the same, for which he has no explanation at all. He also added that the applicant has two cases criminal history and there is ample evidence against him and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that earlier there was no complaint with respect to torturing the deceased for demand of dowry and further the incident took place after 5 years of the marriage; this Court has noticed that there is no ante-mortem injury except apart one superfluous injury which is not explained by the doctor in the postmortem report; further the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 03.08.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Hitesh @ Mohit involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench