Allahabad High Court
Jitendra vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134643
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27355 of 2025
Applicant :- Jitendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Atal Bihari Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.53 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad 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 two years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry, thereby led her to death on 8.5.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted the same day on 8.5.2025 at 11:03 a.m. Learned counsel has stated that the deceased was under depression as her six months' old child got aborted, and subsequent to it, she was diagnosed with gallbladder stone, as such, she had committed suicide out of depression.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the door of the room of the deceased person was broken open by the applicant in the presence of police. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. As such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.
7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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.
12. 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 :- 8.8.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
