Allahabad High Court

Mohit vs State Of U.P. on 19 August, 2025

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141298

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33636 of 2024

Applicant :- Mohit

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Neelabh Srivastava,Om Prakash Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Pramod Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Neelabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 243 of 2023, under
Sections 498A
,
304B
,
IPC and
Section 3
/
of D.P. Act, Police Station Pahari, District Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 05.06.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.4 lacs and a motorcycle as dowry and thereby led her to death on 29.12.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The deceased had committed suicide and the said fact stands fortified from the statement of a chowkidar, who had given the information at police station whereby he has stated that in the morning on 29.12.2023, deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling of room which was closed.

7. Learned counsel has next stated that even the inquest report indicates that the bangles of the deceased were intact in her hands, as such there was no use of any external force, as such the applicant is entitled for bail.

8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.12.2023 and he has been incarcerated for about twenty months and only one witness has been examined to date. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

9. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the incident occurred within a span of six months of the marriage and deceased was pregnant of about ten weeks at that time. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and there is nothing on record to suggest that the door of room of the deceased person was broken open by any person, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.

10. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 24.07.2025. As per the said report, one witness has been examined to date.

11. 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.

12. 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 Cr.P.C., 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.

13.
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.

14. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21;
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors
(2001) 4 SCC 280;
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
(2020) 2 SCC 118;
Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
2022 SCC OnLine SC 458;
Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others
2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501;
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.
(2010)14 SCC 496;
Ishwarji Mali v. 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 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559.

15.
In
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another
2025 INSC 974, the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, aforesaid judgements of the Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the FIR being prompt coupled by the fact that the incident having occurred within a span of six months of the marriage, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

17. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

18. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle
laid down in
the recent judgements 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.

19. 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 :- 19.8.2025

Sumit S

(Justice Krishan Pahal)