Allahabad High Court
Satyajeet Gautam vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 564 of 2025
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Amit 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.498 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Bansgaon, District-Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry within a span of two months of marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as per the post mortem report, a fetus about 5cm in length was observed by the Doctor conducting the autopsy. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that as per the medical jurisprudence, the word "fetus" is given to an "embryo" after passage of eight weeks i.e. 56 days, as such deceased was pregnant by more than two months and she has committed suicide out of shame as she was pregnant earlier to her marriage, as such, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 09.08.2024 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 the death of the deceased took place about 63 days after the incident and the word "fetus" comes into existence after 56 days of pregnancy and it was natural that she was impregnated during the subsistence of the marriage only , as such, he is not entitled for bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that FIR is prompt, cause of death is ante mortem hanging and also the said arguments referred regarding the status of fetus/embryo, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. 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.
10. 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
Karan
