Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10665

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2097 of 2025

Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rahul Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant by court marriage on 23.02.2024 and the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of a car and Rs.10 lakhs as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 29.08.2024 before 12:00 p.m.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as he lives separately on the ground floor of the house and the husband wife used to reside on the first floor. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no question of asking for dowry as it is an admitted fact that it was a court marriage. The allegations are per se false. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail

¶13

application.

¶14

The Supreme Court in the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599 has categorically opined that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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 .

¶16

Let the applicant- Sanjay , 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.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Similar cases

Suraj vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shivam vs State of U.P.

Pappu Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Bahadur vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Sahani vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Bhura vs State of U.P.