Allahabad High Court
Sanjay vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130234
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26670 of 2025
Applicant :- Sanjay
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.875 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 18.05.2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 24.11.2024 between 2-4 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings undertaken on 24.11.2024 and were complete by 11:00 p.m. itself. He was panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings and has not raised the allegations of any demand of dowry by the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is statement of one witness Pushpa, who is the sister of the deceased, and she has stated that the applicant had gone to Mumbai in August, 2024, as such, he was not present at the time of offence. The informant has stated that the applicant used to live in Mumbai. There is anomaly in the post-mortem report of the deceased person regarding fracture of hyoid bone. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 29.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The onus lies on the applicant to explain as to how the deceased had expired within the precincts of his house, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant that too by strangulation and there being no evidence to support the argument that the applicant was not present at the time of offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 4.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
