Allahabad High Court
Hemant Kumar 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:149729
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7398 of 2025
Hemant Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Prabhat Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sunil Kumar Gaur
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by Shri Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Gaur, 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. 277 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kamla Nagar, District- Agra 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 on 01.05.2023. 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 10.11.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the allegation is that applicant was validly married to the deceased person is false as it was a notarized document which was executed between the parties. It is true that it was second marriage of the applicant. The allegations of demand of dowry are false. There is material contradiction in the inquest report and postmortem report. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2023 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 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 06.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned three witnesses have 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 cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injury and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, taking into consideration the status of trial, three witnesses have been examined, 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
August 26, 2025
Sharad/-
