Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53439
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1951 of 2024
Pankaj Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anurag Kumar Singh, Pushpendr Kumar 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 applicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.05/2001, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Harpalpur, District Hardoi.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 while granting interim protection to the applicant has passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to implead the complainant in the array of parties as respondent No.2 during the course of the day.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.05/2001, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Harpalpur, District Hadoi.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
In the prosecution case it is alleged that daughter of the informant was married with the applicant with hindu rites and rituals and enough dowry was given in shape of one Rajdoot motor-cycle and Rs.50,000/- cash. It is alleged that accused persons for giving lesser dowry have harassed and committed cruelty upon the deceased both mental and physical. In Chauthi when the family members of the deceased went to the in laws place, a plot of 18 X 60 squre ft. and a Refrigerator was demanded. On 10.12.2000 when the informant's husband and elder son went to take the deceased from her matrimonial home she was not sent by the in laws and a plot and Refrigerator was demanded. The deceased even ask her brother to stay with her otherwise she will be done to death. Ultimately, on 19.12.2000 it is alleged that she was done to death by pouring kerosene oil and was admitted in the district hospital, Hardoi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that occurrence is of 19.12.2000. Applicant being the husband took her to district hospital, Hardoi then to K.G.M.C. where she remained under treatment for twenty days. F.I.R. has been lodged on 11.01.2001. During course of treatment, dying declaration of the deceased was recorded who has denied the prosecution story and has submitted that it was a love marriage with her husband who take care of her and accidentally she caught fire on her saree and got burnt. During the incident her husband and family members namely, mother-in-law and father-in-law were away from home. The dying declaration has been recorded by the Naib Tehsildar.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that initially investigation was conducted and final report was submitted. After that complainant's side wrote letter to the higher police authorities who directed the CBCID to investigate the matter. Specific pleading in this regard has been taken in para 10 of the bail application. The CBCID after conducting the investigation found no incriminating material against the applicant and thus, supported the final report. After that the protest petition was filed by the complainant side. Learned magistrate vide order dated 13.05.2009 summoned the applicant, his mother and father under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, the summoning order dated 13.05.2009 was challenged by the mother of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Case No.3458 of 2009 whereby this Court vide order dated 17.09.2009 stayed the operation of the summoning order dated 13.05.2009. It is submitted that applicant has cooperated in the trial and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial. He submits that it is an old incident and till date applicant has not been arrested, no useful purpose will be served in sending the applicant behind the bars.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
List on 19.09.2024.
On due consideration to the material available on record particularly dying declaration and also considering 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, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant-Pankaj Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.
(2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. "
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has 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 28.08.2024, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that final report was filed. Against final report, a protest petition has been filed which was treated as a state case.
6. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 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 applicant 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 4, 2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
