Allahabad High Court
Anshu Diwakar vs State Of U.P. on 18 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139683
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28074 of 2025
Applicant :- Anshu Diwakar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Surendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, 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.291 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused person Smt. Premwati Alias Prema who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23177 of 2025. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the FIR does not whisper a single word about demand of dowry. It only mentions that there was demand of some money. It does not fall within the category of Section 80(2) B.N.S.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is major anomaly in the post-mortem report of the deceased to the inquest report. There are injuries visible in the inquest report. The post-mortem report only indicates that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. The hyoid bone was intact, as such, it cannot be a case of throttling. The said post-mortem report cannot be taken into consideration. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 17.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling and the applicant being the husband of the deceased is not entitled for bail.
7. 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 Cr.P.C., 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.
8. 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. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. 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 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974, the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling and the FIR being instituted within a reasonable time after the offence, 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 :- 18.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
