Allahabad High Court
Hansraj @ Hassu vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135204
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26507 of 2025
Applicant :- Hansraj @ Hassu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kishor Gupta,Shiv Shankar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shiv Shankar Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer 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.447 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur 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 29.05.2020 and lot of pleasantries were exchanged in the said marriage including a motorcycle, cash and other things. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and even demanded expenditure incurred in her delivery, thereby led her to death on 02.10.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. He is suffering from umbilical hernia. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The deceased sustained burn injuries out of accident and the cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no demand of dowry mentioned in the FIR, rather it is stated that there was demand of expenses incurred in the delivery of the deceased person. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2022, as such, he is incarcerated for about two years and ten months and his fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and only six witnesses have been examined to date. There are thirty three witnesses mentioned in the final report (charge-sheet), as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. In all, five accused were nominated in the FIR and two of them have been exonerated by the police and no application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved to array the said accused persons.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there are several inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 has stated that the deceased was suffering from mental illness as she was taken for treatment of exorcism. PW-2 has denied the said fact, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 06.10.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is moving on, six witnesses have already been examined. The trial is at its conclusive end and the applicant being the husband and main perpetrator of crime, is not entitled for bail.
10.The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
11. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.
12. In Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.
13. In State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.
14. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280 the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
15. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
16. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."
17. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501 it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559.
18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is moving on and the prosecution evidence is at its conclusive end coupled with the fact that the inconsistencies in the statements cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of adjudicating a bail, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
19. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
20. 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.
21. 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 :- 11.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
