Akash Deep Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124997

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20355 of 2025

Applicant :- Akash Deep Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Dwivedi,Dileep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Ashish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.244 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationBharthana, District- Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 25.6.2018, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 6.9.2024.

¶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. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no specific demand of dowry mentioned in the FIR, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. It is true that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation, but the said opinion has been wrongly formed by the doctor as the hyoid bone was found intact and no fracture has been found in hyoid bone rather partial fracture has been found in the

¶13

thyroid and other cartilage, as such, on the said basis the doctor opined that it is a case of strangulation, but the inquest report does not indicate the case to be of strangulation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the applicant as a bona fide person was present at the time of inquest proceedings and so was the informant. The informant has been arrayed as Panch witness no.3 in the inquest proceedings and the applicant is Panch witness no.4 in it. Had it been otherwise, the applicant would not have been present at that stage. The inquest proceedings were complete on 7.9.2024 at 12:00 p.m. itself and the FIR was instituted about eleven hours after the said proceedings that too after legal consultation and deliberations. It is further stated that after learning the fact that cause of death is found to be strangulation, the instant FIR has been instituted.

¶15

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased was feeling depressed as she had to take care of her ailing mother-in-law who was suffering from kidney disease and was terminally ill. The mother-in-law of the deceased person has been granted bail on the ground of her illness. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation and the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and he being the husband of the deceased person is not entitled for bail.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the said anomaly as raised by learned counsel for the applicant and also the delay of two days in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that the informant as well as the applicant was present at the time of inquest proceedings which were undertaken about eleven hours before the institution of FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Akash Deep Gupta , 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

¶19

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Vikas

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akash Deep Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Deep Gupta 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