High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. 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 Case Crime No. 159 of 2024 under sections 323, 506, 498A and 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 P.S.- Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh. As per the prosecution story, it has been alleged that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the month of April, 2019 with the present applicant and whereafter, the family members of the applicant started demanding dowry and tortured her physically and mentally and when the father of the deceased went to her in-laws house on 03.05.2024 at 11:00 O' clock, he found that she was brutally beaten by the present applicant and the father of the deceased was threatened by the applicant and his family members that he should take away the deceased otherwise they shall murder her and when the father of the deceased reached to his house, it was informed that the deceased was murdered and her dead body was found at Railway Line and thereafter, the first information report is lodged. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was never involved in committing any offence. He added that the applicant being the husband is named in the first information report whereas, the admitted story of the prosecution is the that dead body of the deceased was found on Railway Track and as many as three injuries were found over the body which are reproduced hereinunder:- "1. Head crashed and brain come out and multiple mall bone crash

2. Crashed middle and index finger left hand.

3. Abrasion present on the Rt elbow joint 2x1 cm of size" Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the allegation is that the deceased was beaten brutally on the same day and the post- mortem report is evident that there is no such injury except apart the above three injuries which inflicted due to the deceased met with train accident. He argued that there was no complaint made by the deceased or her family members regarding any demand of dowry prior to the date of incident and even the complainant has also not stated anywhere in his statement with respect to the same. He submits that the deceased was not in the matrimonial house at the time of the alleged incident, as the incident has taken place at about 500 meters away from the parental house of the deceased and place of the occurrence is about 11 Km away from the place of matrimonial house. He next submits that the information was firstly given to the parents of the deceased and therefore, they reached to the place of incident. He added that in fact there was no intent or knowledge to the applicant or any of his family members that the deceased would commit suicide or no such abetment has ever been done by her. He submits that it is a case of suicide as the best reasons known to the deceased and the applicant as well as the family members is no way involved in committing the same. He added that the prosecution has also failed to collect ample evidence against the applicant so as to satisfy that there was any involvement of the applicant with respect to the alleged incident. He next added that the chargesheet has been filed thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 36 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 04.05.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.05.2024; the chargesheet has been filed and thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 36 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence; the prosecution has also failed to collect ample evidence against the applicant so as to satisfy that there was demand of dowry coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same 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- Rajesh Yadav 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 :- 10.2.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. 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 Case Crime No. 159 of 2024 under sections 323, 506, 498A and 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 P.S.- Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh. As per the prosecution story, it has been alleged that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the month of April, 2019 with the present applicant and whereafter, the family members of the applicant started demanding dowry and tortured her physically and mentally and when the father of the deceased went to her in-laws house on 03.05.2024 at 11:00 O' clock, he found that she was brutally beaten by the present applicant and the father of the deceased was threatened by the applicant and his family members that he should take away the deceased otherwise they shall murder her and when the father of the deceased reached to his house, it was informed that the deceased was murdered and her dead body was found at Railway Line and thereafter, the first information report is lodged. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was never involved in committing any offence. He added that the applicant being the husband is named in the first information report whereas, the admitted story of the prosecution is the that dead body of the deceased was found on Railway Track and as many as three injuries were found over the body which are reproduced hereinunder:- "1. Head crashed and brain come out and multiple mall bone crash

2. Crashed middle and index finger left hand.

3. Abrasion present on the Rt elbow joint 2x1 cm of size" Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the allegation is that the deceased was beaten brutally on the same day and the post- mortem report is evident that there is no such injury except apart the above three injuries which inflicted due to the deceased met with train accident. He argued that there was no complaint made by the deceased or her family members regarding any demand of dowry prior to the date of incident and even the complainant has also not stated anywhere in his statement with respect to the same. He submits that the deceased was not in the matrimonial house at the time of the alleged incident, as the incident has taken place at about 500 meters away from the parental house of the deceased and place of the occurrence is about 11 Km away from the place of matrimonial house. He next submits that the information was firstly given to the parents of the deceased and therefore, they reached to the place of incident. He added that in fact there was no intent or knowledge to the applicant or any of his family members that the deceased would commit suicide or no such abetment has ever been done by her. He submits that it is a case of suicide as the best reasons known to the deceased and the applicant as well as the family members is no way involved in committing the same. He added that the prosecution has also failed to collect ample evidence against the applicant so as to satisfy that there was any involvement of the applicant with respect to the alleged incident. He next added that the chargesheet has been filed thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 36 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 04.05.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.05.2024; the chargesheet has been filed and thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 36 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence; the prosecution has also failed to collect ample evidence against the applicant so as to satisfy that there was demand of dowry coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same 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- Rajesh Yadav 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 :- 10.2.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench