Dismissed¶15

Sitaram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2025BAIL/25603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Allahabad High Court; Justice Krishan Pahal; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 25603 of 2025; Sitaram v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 23 of 2025; P.S. Basai Mohammadpur, Firozabad; Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) B.N.S.; Section 3/4 D.P. Act; dowry death/cruelty; Rs.1 lakh dowry demand; death of wife 10.02.2025; antemortem hanging/asphyxia; prompt FIR; death within precincts of husband's house; expedited trial direction per Vinod Kumar (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain (2017) 5 SCC 702; observations confined to bail disposal.

What did the court decide?

After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the promptness of the FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, the court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. ¶14

Sitaram Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, accused in Case Crime No. 23 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act in connection with the death of his wife, should be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was found devoid of merits and was accordingly rejected.

¶15

Key takeaways

The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2015 (3) SCC 220) and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India ((2017) 5 SCC 702).obiter¶16
Observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65), Justice Krishan Pahal — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25603 of 2025 (Order dated 23.8.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:145543): Bail application of Sitaram, husband of the deceased, in Case Crime No. 23 of 2025, Police Station Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad, under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, arising from the death of his wife on 10.02.2025 allegedly after cruelty for a dowry demand of Rs.1 lakh following the marriage solemnized on 19.04.2022. Counsel for applicant urged delay of about one day in the FIR, cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging, change of the dowry demand from Rs.1 lakh to two buffaloes, and suicide by the deceased out of depression; the A.G.A. opposed, contending the applicant is the husband and the death occurred within the precincts of his house. Taking into account the promptness of the FIR and the death occurring within the precincts of the applicant's house, the court found the application devoid of merits and rejected it. The trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, in view of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702. Observations were expressly confined to the disposal of the bail application, without bearing on the merits at trial. Applicant in jail since 12.02.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145543

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25603 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sitaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Niklank Kumar Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.23 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on19.04.2022 and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.1 lakh as dowry, thereby led her to death on 10.02.2025 at about 2:00 p.m.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The demand of dowry has been changed from Rs.1 lakh to two buffaloes, which speaks volume of false implication. The deceased could not bear a child, as such, out of depression had committed suicide.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no other injury sustained by the deceased person on her body. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 12.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In

¶12

case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person and the deceased had expired within the precincts of his house, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶15

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.8.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶19

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶20

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

Sitaram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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