Anand Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 10128 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Anand Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 3 September, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155623
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20617 of 2025   
 
   Anand Kumar    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Rakesh Dubey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Kailash Singh Yadav   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 65
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.      

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kailash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.133 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.450 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 92, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per the FIR, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 28.2.2019 and out of the said wedlock a daughter was born, who was 04 years old at the time of institution of FIR.

5. Subsequently, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death between 26.10.2024 at 06:00 p.m. to 27.10.2024 at 06:00 a.m. The deceased was stated to be pregnant by three months at the time of incident.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled as there is no allegation of demand of dowry soon before her death.

8. It is true that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her postmortem examination, but the applicant has not committed the said offence.

9. Although it is true that two abrasions were found on the left elbow and feet of the deceased person, but the said injuries are minor in nature and may have been caused at the time of retrieving the dead body from the ceiling.

10. There is a video clip of the deceased person, whereby she has stated that the persons responsible for her death are the applicant and his parents, i.e. father and mother. As such, the case does not fall within the category of dowry death rather it may be the case of abetment to suicide, but the case also does not come within the purview of abetment to suicide as there is no overt act assigned to the applicant.

11. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.2828/2829 of 2023 (Allarakha Habib Meman vs. State of Gujarat), whereby the Supreme Court in paragraphs-29 & 30 has held as follows:-

"29. This Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu and Others held that when the police officer does not deliberately record the FIR on receipt of information about cognizable offence and the FIR is prepared after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, such a complaint cannot be treated as FIR and it would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and is hit by Section 162 CrPC. The relevant paras of the judgment in this regard are reproduced hereinbelow: -

5. According to the evidence of PW 22, Circle Inspector, he had received information of the incident from police constable No. 1278, who was on 'bandobast' duty. On receiving the information of the occurrence, PW 22 left for the village of occurrence and started the investigation in the case. Before proceeding to the village to take up the investigation, it is conceded by PW 2 in his evidence, that he made no entry in the daily diary or record in the general diary about the information that had been given to him by constable 1278, who was the first person to give information to him on the basis of which he had proceeded to the spot and taken up the investigation in hand. It was only when PW 1 returned from 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590 the police station along with the written complaint to the village that the same was registered by the Circle Inspector, PW 22, during the investigation of the case at about 12.30 noon, as the FIR, Ex. P-1. In our opinion, the complaint, Ex. P-1, could not be treated as the FIR in the case as it certainly would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and hit by Section 162 CrPC. As a matter of fact the High Court recorded a categorical finding to the effect that Ex. P-1 had not been prepared at Narasaraopet and that it had "been brought into existence at Pamaidipadu itself, after due deliberation". Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stopped to fabricate evidence and create false clues. Though we agree that mere relationship of the witnesses PW 3 and PW 4, the children of the deceased or of PW 1 and PW 2 who are also related to the deceased, by itself is not enough to discard their testimony and that the relationship or the partisan nature of the evidence only puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the evidence more carefully, we find that in this case when the bona fides of the investigation has been successfully assailed, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses either in the absence of strong corroborative evidence of a clinching nature, which is found wanting in this case." (emphasis supplied)

30. In this regard, we are also benefitted by a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka5, the relevant portion of which reads as under: -

"47. Apparently, thus, the close relatives of the deceased had gone to the police station in the late hours of 19th September itself. If this version was true then, in natural course, these 2024 OnLine SC 561 persons were bound to divulge about the incident to the police and their statement/s which would presumably be about an incident of the homicidal death would have mandatorily been entered in the Daily Dairy of the police station if not treated to be the FIR. However, the Daily Diary or the Roznamcha entry of the police station corresponding to the so called visit by the relatives of the deceased to the police station was not brought on record which creates a grave doubt on the genuineness of the FIR(Exhibit P-10). The complainant(PW-1) admitted in cross examination that the Poujadar came to his house and he narrated the incident to the officer who scribed the same and thereafter, the complainant appended his signatures on the writing made by the Poujadar. However, ASI Tikota Police Station(PW-18) testified on oath that complainant(PW-1) came to the police station and submitted a written report which was taken as the complaint of the incident. He did not state anything about any complaint being recorded at the house of the complainant prior to lodging of the report. Thus, there is a grave contradiction on this important aspect as to whether the report was submitted by the complainant(PW-1) in the form of a written complaint or whether the oral statement of complainant(PW-1) was recorded by the police officials at his home leading to the registration of FIR(Exhibit P-10). The non-production of the Daily Dairy maintained at the police station assumes great significance in the backdrop of these facts. Apparently thus, the FIR(Exhibit P-10) is a post investigation document and does not inspire confidence." (emphasis supplied)"

12. As the information was given by the applicant to the police about the incident, but no entry has been made, as such, the case of applicant is pari materia to the said two referred judgments of the Supreme Court.

13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 6.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

14. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the ingredients of dowry death and abetment to suicide are a bit different. In the case of abetment, there must be some overt act and in the case of dowry death, it has to be seen that the death is under normal circumstances or not.

15. The deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

16. The FIR was instituted within time and there are two other injuries sustained by the deceased person in addition to the ligature mark.

CONCLUSION:

17. 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.

18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging coupled with the fact that FIR being instituted within time and there being two other injuries in addition to the ligature mark as also that trial is going on as already four witnesses have been examined, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

19. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

20. 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.

21. 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.)

September 3, 2025

Vikas Verma