Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113351

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19145 of 2025

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Counter affidavits filed by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Umanath Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 313 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 08.12.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs. three lacs and a bullet motorcycle as dowry and thereby led her to death on 14.11.2024 at about 5 p.m.

¶11

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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶12

Learned counsel has further stated that it is admitted by the prosecution that father of the applicant had informed the informant about the incident and they reached the place of occurrence and are the panch witnesses to the inquest proceedings. The informant is

¶13

the panch witness no.4 in the said inquest proceedings. The inquest proceedings were completed on 14.11.2024 at about 8:30 p.m. itself and the FIR has been instituted in the night at 2:30 a.m. on 15.11.2024 after legal consultation.

¶14

Learned counsel has next stated that it is true that in the inquest report, it is mentioned that the in-laws of the deceased person had assaulted the deceased person and committed her murder and thereupon hung her to the branch of Neem tree in the house itself. The said rai panchan does not whisper a single word about the demand of dowry whatsoever. It is next stated that in the opinion of the Naib Tehsildar, who conducted the inquest proceedings, it has come up that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging to the Neem tree, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant has a strong alibi as he was attending to his duties at Wadhwa Garments at Delhi at the specific time of offence and there is a certificate issued by his employer which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application whereby it has been mentioned that on the date of incident i.e. 14.11.2024, he was there at his shop from 10:00 a.m. till evening, as such there was no possibility of the applicant being present at the place of occurrence at the time of offence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that the deceased used to have friendship with one Vipin and there is a photograph filed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit showing them in one frame. The deceased had committed suicide as she did not want to live with the applicant and was in love with said Vipin but she was married to the applicant by the family members. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and there is no medical corroboration of the allegations of physical assault.

¶17

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the panch witnesses have stated that the applicant and other family members have assaulted her and had put her to death and thereby suspended her to the Neem tree. It is next stated that there are

¶19

CDRs which indicate that at 11 a.m. the same day of offence, deceased had called her sister-in-law and stated that she would be put to death if the said demand of dowry is not fulfilled by the family. Subsequent to it, at 5 p.m. father-in-law of the deceased person informed the family members of the informant that the deceased had expired. It is next stated that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and also there being no injuries sustained by the deceased person to corroborate the allegations of assault to the deceased person and also taking into account that the family members of the informant were present at the time of inquest proceedings much before institution of FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶22

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Sumit S

¶27

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khesharilal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prince Alias Himanshu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P.

Panna Lal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Faeem vs State of U.P.

Prashant Tiwari vs State of U.P.