Allahabad High Court
Vimal Kishor Mishra @ Vimal Kumar Mishra ... vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 3 September, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53376
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1813 of 2024
Vimal Kishor Mishra @ Vimal Kumar Mishra And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in Case Crime No. 224 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Misrikh, District Sitapur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 while granting interim protection to the applicants has passed the following order:-
"1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants Vimal Kishor Mishra, Surya Prakash Mishra, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Naval Kishor Mishra seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 224 of 2014, under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Misrikh, District Sitapur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.
3. Prosecution case is that the complainant married his daughter Neha on 13.7.2013 with Vimal Kumar Mishra, applicant no.1. The complainant has given dowry as per his capacity in the marriage. It is alleged that son-in-law( applicant no.1) father-in-law Surya Prakash, mother-in-law, Smt. Pushpa Mishra and brother-in-law, Naval Mishra were not satisfied with the dowry given by the complainant. After the marriage when the daughter of the complainant returned she told the complainant and other family members that her husband and in-laws demanded four wheeler car as additional dowry and everyone said that whenever you come back, get a car from your father only then you will be able to live. During Gauna, when husband and in-laws came to the complaint's house to take her daughter, everyone had asked to give a car as dowry. The complainant could not give a car due to poor financial condition and due to this all the three persons became angry. The deceased, daughter of the complainant was not allowed to meet her family members. Even the deceased was not allowed to talk through mobile with the complainant and family members. On 8.7.2014 at about 9.00 p.m. information was received through phone that the complainant's daughter had died in the medical college. He came to know that she has consumed poison due to which she died. The dead body was cremated by the complainant after bringing it to village Sandana on 9.7.2024. The in-laws of the deceased did not even attend the last rites.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased died on 26.6.2014. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded in the presence of the Tehsildar, which is on record. She was admitted to District hospitals on 26.6.2014 where dying declaration was recorded. Thereafter, referred to the Medical College. She remained admitted in the Medical College from 27.6.2014 to 8.7.2014 where she died.
5. It is submitted that even in the dying declaration there is no allegation against the in-laws by the deceased. Only this much has been said that she has no complaint with anyone. Accidentally she consumed the pill which was used to kill the insects along with rice.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the postmortem cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved, however, in the viscera report no poison was found. After conducting investigation the Final Report was filed on 1.10.2014. Thereafter again further investigation was conducted and second final report was also filed, which was rejected on the protest application filed by the complainant and on 13.2.2020 the applicant was summoned. He submits that there is nothing in the postmortem report or in the viscera report to show that the deceased died in unnatural circumstances. Cause of death could not be ascertained. The incident is of the year 2014. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation and undertakes to cooperate in the trial. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. No useful purpose will be solved in sending the applicants behind the bar.
7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He prays for two weeks' time to file objections/counter affidavit.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and the facts that the applicants have no criminal antecedent, they have cooperated in the investigation and undertake to cooperate in the trial as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C till the next date of listing.
9. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants Vimal Kishor Mishra, Surya Prakash Mishra, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Naval Kishor Mishra shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
2. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
3. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
4. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail.
Such other reasonable conditions which the learned trial court may deem fit may be imposed.
10. List on 26.9.2024.
11. Four weeks' time is allowed to learned A.G.A. to file Counter Affidavit, two weeks' thereafter for Rejoinder Affidavit. "
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicants have been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet without collecting the cogent and tangible evidence. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 12.08.2024, applicants have filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicants undertake to cooperate in the trial. Applicants have not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicants have cooperated in the investigation and they shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.
7. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
September 3, 2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
