Allahabad High Court
Mohd Saddam @ Mohd Asgar vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:149241
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15979 of 2024
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Sadaf Noori, 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. 206 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj 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 Muslim Rites on 24.02.2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 10.07.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is further submitted that annexure-9 of the bail application indicates that deceased was being treated for infertility and under depression, she has committed suicide. The status report of trial also indicates that the said delay any is due to the prosecution, it has failed to produce the witness. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 12.07.2023 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 deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. Before the incident, she had called the informant and stated that she was beaten by the applicant and other persons. The FIR is prompt and cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injury. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
7. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial concerned. As per the status report dated 13.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned only one witness has been examined.
8. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is prompt and cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injury. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the 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.
August 26, 2025/Sharad/-
