Laxmi Kant @ Laxmi vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4425 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Laxmi Kant @ Laxmi vs State Of U.P. on 12 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136752
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31607 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Laxmi Kant @ Laxmi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hari Nath Chaubey,R.V. Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Chakiya, District- Chandaui, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed dowry death of the deceased person on 20.08.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The inquest report of the deceased was prepared on 20.08.2022 at 01:30 PM and the informant and other family members were present at that time which is indicated from the inquest report itself as informant has been arrayed as Panch witness No.1 in the said inquest proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR is delayed and it was instituted on 21.08.2022 at about 02:24 PM. It is further argued that deceased had expired 10 years after the marriage, as such, case was instituted under Section 498A, 302 I.P.C. along with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. The burden lies on the prosecution itself to prove its case.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that only evidence against the applicant is his confessional statement before the Magistrate concerned which is not as per the High Court Rules as the applicant was arrested by police on 26.08.2022 and was taken before the Magistrate concerned and was remanded to judicial custody. He was never informed by the Magistrate concerned that the said confession may be used against him and he shall not be sent to police custody after the said recording of the confessional statement. It is further argued that even the remand-sheet dated 26.08.2022 indicates that the applicant was taken in police custody and was placed before the Magistrate concerned and after recording his statement he was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days the same day.

9. 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 26.08.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation and deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, under the circumstances, the burden of proving the death of the deceased person lies on the applicant only as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel has further stated that after learning that the cause of death was strangulation, FIR has been instituted. Had it been the case of false implication, the FIR would have been instituted at a go.

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 v. 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. v. 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 versus 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. The 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; Iswarji 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. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon consideration of the post-mortem opinion indicating that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from ante-mortem strangulation, coupled with the fact that the death occurred within the precincts of the applicant's residence, and without adverting to the anomaly in the applicant's confessional statement, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not warrant the 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 :- 12.8.2025

Karan

(Justice Krishan Pahal)