Subhash Singh vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29480 of 2025

Subhash Singh

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ashok Kumar Godbole	Shukla,	Surendra Madhukar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.92 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Haldi, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶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. The prosecution story cannot be believed as it is stated that the applicant and other family members had assaulted the deceased person and sent her to her maternal home, where she stayed and was subsequently admitted to a hospital and expired on 26.04.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The deceased has expired further three days after the FIR, as such, it is a clearcut case of false implication. In all five witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the husband of the deceased as he used to live separate to the husband-wife duo in a temple as after the death of his

¶12

BAIL No. 29480 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

wife, he has renounced the world. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.04.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶16

In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N. AIR 1973 SC 501 , the Supreme Court has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.

¶17

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.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the applicant lives separately to the husband-wife duo, 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 .

¶19

Let the applicant- Subhash Singh , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two

¶20

BAIL No. 29480 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶29

September 4, 2025

¶30

(Ravi Kant)

¶31

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

Subhash Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Shankar Goswami vs State of U.P.

Pintu vs State of U.P.

Raja @ Gaurav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kirashna vs State of U.P.

Bhagmal vs State of U.P.

Alim vs State of U.P.