Allahabad High Court
Mukesh vs State Of U.P. on 19 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141332
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28302 of 2025
Applicant :- Mukesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, 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.203 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bilsi, District- Budaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 15.7.2024, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 3.6.2025. The applicant and other family members are stated to have throttled the deceased to death.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The main allegations are against the sister-in-law of the deceased, who happens to be daughter of the applicant. There is no allegation against the applicant of demand of dowry, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled as far as the applicant is concerned. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.6.2025 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant that too within one year 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 fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling coupled by the fact that it is not a case of suicide, 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 :- 19.8.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
