Vijay Patel vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34945

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1768 of 2025

Applicant :- Vijay Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Narain Pathak,Sanjay Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No. 93 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No.325 of 2023), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Tamkuhiraj, District Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated, are that the complainant, who is mother of deceased-Sarita lodged an F.I.R. on 28.09.2023 against the applicant-Vijay Patel and his family members, namely, Vidyanti Devi, Kiran Devi, Pooja Devi & Geeta Devi for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, making allegation inter-alia that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized on 10.05.2023 with the applicant. Her daughter was having pregnancy of two months, but her in-laws used to harass and torture her on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. On 27.09.2023 at about 04:00 AM, she received an information that her daughter was done to death in her matrimonial home.

¶9

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The complainant- Pratima Devi, who is mother of the deceased has been examined before the trial Court as P.W.-1 and she has been declared hostile. Thereafter, Om Prakash Patel, who has been examined before the trial Court as P.W.-2, did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 29.09.2023, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that as per post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of her death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation and deceased died her unnatural death in her matrimonial home. Hence, in the light of the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that the cause of death of the deceased is due to strangulation, which is a heinous offence. The deceased died within six months of her marriage in her matrimonial home in a suspicious circumstances. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that P.W.-1 has been declared hostile is concerned, I find that F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 28.09.2023, whereas statement of complainant as P.W.-1 has been recorded before the trial court after a considerable delay on 31.09.2024, hence, the possibility of winning over the prosecution witnesses from the side of accused cannot be ruled out. The applicant being husband of the deceased is not only responsible for welfare and safety of his wife, but he is also under heavy onus to explain the cause of death of his wife, which has occurred in his own

¶12

home. In the present matter, no plausible explanation about cause of death has been given by the applicant to counter the post-mortem report, hence, his innocence can not be adjudged at this pre trial stage.

¶13

Since the allegation of the prosecution, which is a State case arising out of F.I.R. and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court is not examining the statements of prosecution witnesses meticulously at this stage in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. However, this Court is of the view that the conclusion from the statement of witnesses shall be drawn, considering his/her statement as a whole, coupled with all attending factors, circumstances as well as material evidence on record.

¶14

In the light of cause of death as mentioned in post-mortem report as noted above as well as in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶16

However, considering the detention period of the applicant, the trial Court is also directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.

¶17

It is made clear that any observations made in this order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect merit of the trial.

¶18

Copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.3.2025

¶20

Sanjeet

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jaisingh vs State of U.P.

Charan Singh vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Singh Verma @ Kuldeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sonu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Durgesh vs State of U.P.

Mirajul Haq vs State of U.P.