Sitaram vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6961 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sitaram vs State Of U.P. on 23 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145543
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25603 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Sitaram
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Niklank Kumar Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for applicant, 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.23 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on19.04.2022 and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.1 lakh as dowry, thereby led her to death on 10.02.2025 at about 2:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The demand of dowry has been changed from Rs.1 lakh to two buffaloes, which speaks volume of false implication. The deceased could not bear a child, as such, out of depression had committed suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no other injury sustained by the deceased person on her body. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 12.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person and the deceased had expired within the precincts of his house, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

8. 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.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. 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.

11. 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 :- 23.8.2025

(Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)