Allahabad High Court
Bharat Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88822
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17952 of 2025
Applicant :- Bharat Singh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Sri Ajay Sengar, Advocate appears on behalf of the first informant and files Vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.
4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure/483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Bharat Singh Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 592 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Navabad, District Jhansi.
5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 21.12.2024 by Govind Singh against the applicant (father-in-law), Smt. Geeta Devi (mother-in-law), Shivani (nand), Shivek (devar) and Vivek (husband) alleging therein that his daughter Mohini was married to Vivek on 14.02.2024 as per Hindu Customs and Rituals. In the marriage he had given gifts and dowry of about more than Rs. 15 lakh and household articles of about Rs. 7 lakh along with other gifts. When his daughter went to her matrimonial house, the accused persons were not satisfied with dowry and there was a demand of Rs. 5 lakh as additional dowry. His daughter opposed the same on which she was assaulted and tortured physically and mentally. Somehow she sent an information to him but the accused persons did not stop their demand and were persistent on their demand of Rs. 5 lakh. Panchayat was called many times with relatives and people of the community but the accused persons did not stop their demand. On 18.12.2024 Mohini the daughter of the informant told him on phone that she may be taken back otherwise they would murder her. On the said information, the first informant sent his son Himanshu on 18.12.2024 to the matrimonial house of his daughter after which he informed him that her in-laws are assaulting her and he may come immediately. The informant then consoled him that things will set right and he may not get disturbed but on 20.12.2024 at about 02:00 pm the accused persons due to their demand of dowry being not fulfilled assaulted his daughter and in front of his son caught hold of her and threw her from the second floor of the house. His son while crying started shouting but no one listened to him. Her in-laws then for show off took her to Saroj Hospital, Jhansi where she died. The son informed him about the incident. The accused persons due to their demand of dowry not being fulfilled threw his daughter and murdered her. FIR be lodged and action be taken.
6. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conduced in which the doctor found the following injuries:
"i. Abrasion of size 8cm x 2cm present on left side neck extend from mid of neck to laterally left just above the medial end of left clavicle.
ii. Abrasion of size 3cm x 2cm present just above the clavicle.
iii. Multiple abrasion present on left side chest in 9cm x 6cm area which is situated 6 below left nipple big one is of size 0.5cm x 0.5cm and small on is 01cm x 0.1cm.
iv. Abrasion of size 19cm x 10cm present on left side of chest extending from letratand medially lateral end is 11cm from umbilicus and 24cm below left axilla.
v. Abrasion of size 4cm x 2cm present on mid of left scapula."
7. Further the doctor found 2nd, 3rd and 4th left ribs fractured and 1st to 5th ribs were also found fracture and there was clotted and free blood present in the abdominal cavity, the liver was found ruptured. The cause of death was opined as shock and hemorrhage due to above mentioned injuries.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased accidentally fell from the house and received injuries. It is submitted that after receiving injuries, the deceased was taken to Saroj Hospital by her husband Vivek Yadav who has signed on the consent form of the said hospital. It is submitted that the deceased was admitted in Saroj Hospital on 20.12.2024 at about 04:05 pm who later on died on the same day at about 06:50 pm. It is further submitted that in so far as Himanshu the son of the informant is concerned, although he is shown to be an eye witness of the incident but his statement goes to show that he has not a trustworthy witness. It is submitted that after death of the deceased, an information was sent to the police through ward boy of the Medical College, Jhansi on which the inquest was conducted in which the cause of death was opined as unknown reason. It is submitted that Govind Singh the first informant was a witness of the said inquest. It is further submitted that the applicant is a police personal and was present in District Agra on duty. While placing para 23, 24 and 25 of the affidavit it is submitted that after getting information about the said incident the applicant sought leave from his police station and his ravangi was entered at about 04:40 pm, the same is mentioned at G.D. after which the applicant proceeded for Jhansi and reached there. It is submitted that the distance between Agra and Jhasi is approximately 234 kilometers and would take time around 04.23 hours to reach. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, Smt. Geeta Devi and Vivek but Shivani (nand) and Shivek Kumar (devar) of the deceased have been exonerated by the police and thus even the prosecution case goes to show that it is a case of implicating extra accused persons, para 22 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para 44 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.03.2025.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and is named in the FIR and has been assigned the role in the matter. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within one year of marriage in her matrimonial house and there is an allegation of demand of dowry by all the accused persons. Learned counsel for the first informant has produced before the Court a "Brought Dead Certificate" of the Medical College, Jhansi in which the date and time mentioned is 04:30 pm on 20.12.2024 and has submitted that the deceased was brought at 04:30 pm at the Medical College by Bharat Singh the applicant and was found dead. It is submitted that the same would go to show that Bharat Singh the applicant was present at the time and place of occurrence and thus the alibi as is being claimed is false, copy of the said certificate produced before the Court is taken on record. It is submitted that there is an eye witness in the present matter who is the brother of the deceased and son of the first informant who has seen the incident and has been interrogated who corroborates the prosecution version. It is submitted that the applicant is thus involved in the present matter.
10. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died within one year of marriage in her matrimonial house and the death is unnatural. It is submitted that the deceased received extensive injuries on her body which can be seen from the postmortem examination report also. Apart from the documents of Saroj Hospital it is submitted that in so far as the question of alibi is concerned, the same is false. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another : SLP (Criminal) No. 15156 of 2024, decided on 03.03.2025 and while placing para 15 of the same has submitted that the gravity of the offence also needs to be looked into and there is nothing on record that the deceased died a natural death. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
11. In response to the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant regarding "Brought Dead Certificate" of Medical College learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the documents of Saroj Hospital, the deceased was brought to the hospital on 20.12.2024 at about 04:05 pm after which she was given treatment and the husband of the deceased was very well present there which would to show that she was alive and was provided treatment who died later on at 06:50 pm. It is further submitted that information from the medical college to the police station would go to show that the cause of death was stated to be unknown cause on the basis of which inquest was conducted.
12. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. He is named in the FIR. Information about the death of the deceased was sent from the Medical College, Jhansi to the police station which is at page 65 of the paper book on 20.12.2024 in which it is mentioned that the person bringing therein has informed that the cause of death is unknown. The deceased died within one year of marriage in her matrimonial house. The postmortem examination report shows that extensive injuries on her body. There is an eye witness to the incident being Himanshu the son of the first informant who was present at the place of occurrence. In so far as the alibi of the applicant is concerned, the same needs to be proved in the trial at the appropriate stage. No ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
13. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
14. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.5.2025
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
