Satendra Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26855 of 2025

Satendra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Namit Srivastava, Parul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2025, under Sections 108, 115(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Visharatganj, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The deceased was not subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, and Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal and others, Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017, dated 21.01.2025 . The mother in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19080 of 2025, Maya Devi v. State of U.P. Investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 11.03.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not

¶10

BAIL No. 26855 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

misuse the said liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost seven months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Satendra, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶16