Allahabad High Court
Shubham 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:149812
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6468 of 2025
Shubham
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Syed Abbas Shaukat Abidi, Syed Ahmed Faizan, Syed Ali Shaukat (Abidi)
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Syed Abbas Shaukat Abidi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, 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. 0195 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffarnagar 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 07.07.2017. 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 25.04.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry. In the FIR, there are vague allegations against the applicant. Deceased could not bear the child during subsistence of her marriage for five and half years, as such out of the said depression, she has committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide and the said fact stands fortified from the viscera report. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no other antemortem injury as bona fide act the applicant had admitted that deceased in the night of 25/26.04.2024 at about 1:21 a.m. but she could not survive. She died within 20 minutes of her admission. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 27.04.2024 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 two witnesses have already been examined and counsel for the applicant is not co-operating in the trial even he did not cross examine the PW-1 and his opportunity was closed. Cross examination of PW-2 is going on.
7. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial concerned. As per the status report dated 08.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned two witnesses have been examined.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that counsel for the applicant is not co-operating in the trial even he did not cross examine the PW-1 and opportunity was closed, 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
August 26, 2025
Sharad/-
