Allahabad High Court
Haresh Pachauri vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144837
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27968 of 2025
Applicant :- Haresh Pachauri
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Virendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Virendar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 307, 316, 323, 504, 506, 326 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kagarol, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 26.01.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and did not give her enough to eat and there are allegations that they even used to beat her up for demand of dowry and thereby set her ablaze on 11.04.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel has next argued that the deceased was treated for 12 days and the applicant had admitted the deceased in a very reputed hospital of the locality i.e. Pushpanjali Hospital, Agra and he took every endeavour to save the life of the deceased person.
7. Learned counsel has further stated that the prosecution has placed reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased person which indicates that it was the applicant who had poured oil over the deceased and thereupon set her ablaze. Learned counsel has next stated that as per medical report, smell of diesel was coming from the body of the deceased.
8. Learned counsel has stated that in the said dying declaration the doctor has categorically mentioned that the patient was sick with poor prognosis and irritable due to burning sensation and was awake, conscious and oriented. It is also mentioned by the doctor, after recording of the dying declaration, that the condition was critical and the deceased was having difficulty in speaking due to oedema and has stated that there was poor prognosis and swelling over the body.
9. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in 2024 : AHC : 152205 - DB titled as Shahrukh Khan and another Vs. State of U.P., paragraph no.16 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow :-
" 16. The dying declaration has already been extracted above. We find that in the certification made by the doctor on it, the limited recital is that the patient is conscious, oriented and fit for statement. At the foot of the dying declaration also the satisfaction is with regard to patient remaining conscious and oriented during dying declaration. This certification has been made by the doctor, who admittedly has not been produced in evidence. The specific recording of satisfaction is with regard to the consciousness on the part of the victim and her orientation and fitness for giving statement. We find that there is no conscious satisfaction recorded by the doctor with regard to the fit mental state of the victim, wherein alone she could have made a valid dying declaration. The reason for it is apparent. In the facts of the case, the victim had sustained 90% burn injuries. In such physical state the victim would be traumatized and the doctors usually administered various medication to relieve the pain, etc. What would be the effect of such medication would have to be examined. Some medications may cause drowsiness or the traumatized condition of he victim may cause hallucinations, etc. Doubt would arise with regard to the mental state of the victim and unless the doctor certifies the mental fitness of the victim the Court usually would be reluctant in relying upon such dying declaration. It is in this context that we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that, that in absence of there being any recording of satisfaction with regard to mental fitness of the victim factually at the time of making dying declaration, it does not appear to be entirely safe to rely upon such dying declaration. In this regard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Lokesh and Ors. (supra), wherein this Court has made following observations in para-45 to 50:
47. We are therefore doubtful of the victim being in a proper mental shape to have given a conscious voluntarily statement which could qualify to be a dying declaration. The Magistrate/Deputy Collector who has recorded the dying declaration of the victim has also admitted that no questions were put to the victim regarding her fit mental state.
48. At this juncture, we would like to refer to the observation of the Supreme Court in Paparambaka Rosamma & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1999) 7 SC 695, wherein the Court while referring to the dying declaration observed that mere statement that patient is conscious while recording the statement is not sufficient. In a case where injured had sustained 90 % burn injuries, it was necessary to ascertain the fit mental state of the injured before accepting the dying declaration."
10. Learned counsel has further argued that the case of the applicant is pari materia to the aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court. It is categorically stated therein that conscious state of the deceased cannot be inferred from a person who has sustained 90% burn injury. In the instant case also, deceased has sustained 92% burn injury and later on, the doctor had opined it to be 95% burn injury, as such the said dying declaration cannot be relied upon.
11. Learned counsel has next stated that the said dying declaration itself is inconsistent and contradictory as at one stage, she has stated that she along with her mother-in-law and husband was present at the time of incident. Had the applicant been present there, she would have mentioned the name of the applicant also.
12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2024. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
13. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said judgment does not apply to the case of the applicant as in that case, an appeal was filed against the order of conviction and the accused was acquitted on the ground that the statement of doctor, who had given fitness certificate in the dying declaration, was not recorded, as such applicant is not entitled for bail.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and considering the dying declaration whereby the applicant is the sole accused, who had poured diesel over the deceased person and set her ablaze, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
15. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
16. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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.
17. 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 :- 22.8.2025
Sumit S
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
