High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 8.5.2025 in FIR No. 0141/2025 u/s 85(498IPC), 108 (306 IPC) BNS, 2023, P.S. Jahangirabad, District Barabanki .It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the F.I.R. wherein the date of incident is dated 1.5.2025 but the F.I.R. is dated 7.5.2025 without explaining the reason of delay. In the impugned F.I.R. the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his family members. Learned counsel has stated that his family members may not be held responsible for the reason that the marriage of the present applicant with the deceased was result of love affair wherein his family members were not agreeable. Since it was a love marriage, therefore, the allegation of demanding dowry is misconceived. So far as the factum of cruelty is concerned the present applicant does not dispute that on account of some trivial dispute which are possible between the husband and wife some dispute had arisen but those disputes were not so serious which may come within the ambit of cruelty. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as section 108 BNS is concerned there is no material or evidence to show any overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide so prima-facie the ingredients of section 108 BNS are missing, however, such allegations may be tested during the course of the trial. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The relation of the applicant with his wife were cordial and he is absolutely unaware as to why and how his wife committed suicide. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no antemortem injury except the ligature mark which might have caused on account of hanging. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the date of incident is dated 1.5.2025 but the F.I.R. is dated 7.5.2025 without explaining the reason of delay, in the F.I.R. the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his family members, marriage of the present applicant with the deceased was result of love affair wherein his family members were not agreeable, since it was a love marriage, therefore, the allegation of demanding dowry is misconceived, applicant does not dispute that on account of some trivial dispute which are possible between the husband and wife some dispute had arisen but those disputes were not so serious which may come within the ambit of cruelty, so far as section 108 BNS is concerned there is no material or evidence to show any overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide, the ingredients of section 108 BNS are missing, applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, relation of the applicant with his wife were cordial and he is absolutely unaware as to why and how his wife committed suicide, there is no antemortem injury except the ligature mark which might have caused on account of hanging. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

7. Bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant Dhirendra Rawat, involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / she 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 / her 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 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him / her 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 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 / her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country (India) without prior permission of the Court. OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 29.7.2025/Om

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 8.5.2025 in FIR No. 0141/2025 u/s 85(498IPC), 108 (306 IPC) BNS, 2023, P.S. Jahangirabad, District Barabanki .It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the F.I.R. wherein the date of incident is dated 1.5.2025 but the F.I.R. is dated 7.5.2025 without explaining the reason of delay. In the impugned F.I.R. the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his family members. Learned counsel has stated that his family members may not be held responsible for the reason that the marriage of the present applicant with the deceased was result of love affair wherein his family members were not agreeable. Since it was a love marriage, therefore, the allegation of demanding dowry is misconceived. So far as the factum of cruelty is concerned the present applicant does not dispute that on account of some trivial dispute which are possible between the husband and wife some dispute had arisen but those disputes were not so serious which may come within the ambit of cruelty. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as section 108 BNS is concerned there is no material or evidence to show any overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide so prima-facie the ingredients of section 108 BNS are missing, however, such allegations may be tested during the course of the trial. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The relation of the applicant with his wife were cordial and he is absolutely unaware as to why and how his wife committed suicide. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no antemortem injury except the ligature mark which might have caused on account of hanging. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the date of incident is dated 1.5.2025 but the F.I.R. is dated 7.5.2025 without explaining the reason of delay, in the F.I.R. the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his family members, marriage of the present applicant with the deceased was result of love affair wherein his family members were not agreeable, since it was a love marriage, therefore, the allegation of demanding dowry is misconceived, applicant does not dispute that on account of some trivial dispute which are possible between the husband and wife some dispute had arisen but those disputes were not so serious which may come within the ambit of cruelty, so far as section 108 BNS is concerned there is no material or evidence to show any overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide, the ingredients of section 108 BNS are missing, applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, relation of the applicant with his wife were cordial and he is absolutely unaware as to why and how his wife committed suicide, there is no antemortem injury except the ligature mark which might have caused on account of hanging. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

7. Bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant Dhirendra Rawat, involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / she 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 / her 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 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him / her 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 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 / her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country (India) without prior permission of the Court. OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 29.7.2025/Om