Allahabad High Court

Vijit vs State Of U.P. on 12 August, 2025

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137126

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26249 of 2024

Applicant :- Vijit

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal,Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Yadav

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Shubham Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 646 of 2023, under
Sections 498A
,
304B
I.P.C. and 3/4
D.P. Act
, Police Station- Shikohabad, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 16.02.2020, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of a four wheeler car as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 15.08.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 14 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and there is no other injury observed on the body of the deceased person. The allegations that the applicant demanded a car are per se false.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant which stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.11.2023, as such, his fundamental rights as enshrined under
Article 21
of the Constitution of India stands violated. Applicant is ready to cooperate with trial, in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. The Supreme Court in
Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under
Section 439
of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

10.
In
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration
), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.

11. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.

12.
In
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors
(2001) 4 SCC 280 the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.

13.
In
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.

14.
In
Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others
2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under
Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."

15.
In
Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. The State of Rajasthan
(2022) 3 SCC 501 it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.

The same view has been vent in
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. AShis Chatterjee and Anr
(2010)14 SCC 496;
Iswarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another
, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55;
Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar
, (2020) 2 SCC 118;
Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others
, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89;
Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr
, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458;and
Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
, (2022)8 SCC 559.

16. This Court had called for status of trial from the court concerned. As per status report dated 08.08.2025 only one witness has been examined.

17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the FIR being prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

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

19. 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.

20. 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.

Order Date :- 12.8.2025

Karan

(Justice Krishan Pahal)