Allahabad High Court
Sahil 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:139731
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27460 of 2025
Applicant :- Sahil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun,Kuldeep Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aditya Vardhan Singh,G.A.,Shivam Vath
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Aditya Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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.55 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed as no time of offence is mentioned in it. There is no particular demand of dowry as per the FIR, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. The fact that there was a dispute and the family members had gathered to settle it stands falsified from the statement of independent witness. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant was a strong person and used to do the major work of farming in the house, as such, peeved by the said act of the applicant, the deceased had committed suicide as the elder brother of the applicant did not help in the said farming.The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 27.02.2025 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 FIR is prompt as it was instituted the same day and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant that too within ten months of her marriage, as such, he 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 promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, 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)
