Udit Pandey Vs State of U.P.

This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant- Udit Pandey seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.47 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Bisanda, District Banda during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Case No.662 of 2022 (State Vs. Udit Pandey and others) under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Bisanda, District Banda, now pending in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda.

¶11

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56856 of 2022 (Udit Pandey Vs. State of U.P.).

¶12

Subsequently, applicant filed repeat application for bail which came to be registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31428 of 2024 (Udit Pandey Vs. State of U.P.). The repeat bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 29.08.2024. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced hereinunder:

¶13

"1. Heard Mr. Mangla Prasad Rai, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶14

2. Perused the record.

¶15

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Udit

¶16

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Pandey seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Bisanda, District-Bandar, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Case No.662 of 2022 (State Vs. Udit Pandey and others) under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police StationBisanda, District-Bandar, now pending in the Court of Special Judge ( E. C. Act), Banda.

¶19

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56856 of 2022 (Udit Pandey Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the said order is reproduced herein under:

¶20

"1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶21

2. Perused the Court.

¶22

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Udit Pandey, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bisanda, District- Banda, during the pendency of trial.

¶23

4. Record shows that Marriage of applicant Udit Pandey was solemnized with Neeraj on 14.09.2021. However, just after expiry of a period of approximately five months from the date of marriage of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 09.02.2022 in which wife of applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself.

¶24

5. The information regarding aforesaid occurrence at the police station concerned was not given by applicant or any of his family members but by Harwans Tiwari (brother of the deceased). Subsequently Harwans Tiwari, the brother of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. dated 09.02.2022, which was registered as Case Crime No. 47 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bisanda, District- Banda. In the aforesaid F.I.R. five persons namely Udit Pandey (husband), Rajendra Pandey (Father-in-law), Mother-in-law, Rubi Mishra (Nanad), Deepak Mishra (Nanad) of deceased have been nominated as named accused.

¶25

6. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that the marriage of the sister of first informant was solemnized with Udit Pandey on 14.09.2021 i.e. applicant in accordance with Hindu Rites and Custom. Subsequently on 09.02.2022 an information was received that sister of first informant has died as she committed suicide. The F.I.R.

¶26

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

further records that the death of the deceased has occurred on account of joint conduct of named accused. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that physical and mental curelty was committed upon the deceased in furtherance of the demand of additional dowry.

¶29

7. After aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged, the inquest (Panchnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased was characterised as homicidal. Thereafter, post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the body of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The Autopsy Surgeon, found following ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased:-

¶30

" Ligature mark present around the neck, 36.8 cm x 1 cm oblique situated above hyoid cartilage right side postero lateral aspect of neck knot present and left side angel of mouth saliva present. gap 5 cm of right side ligature mark present, 4 cm below right sixe, 5 cm below left ear, 5 cm below chin,

¶31

Orient Section: Unbilicus.... Ligature mark subcutaneous tissue white hard and glistening present.

¶32

8. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have substantially supported the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only three of the named accused namely Udit Pandey, Rajendra Pandey (Father-inlaw) and Mother-in-law of the deceased is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 19.04.2023 against aforementioned three named accused whereas rest of the two named accused were exculpated.

¶33

9. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is the husband of the deceased and a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is next contended that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of terminating her life by committing suicide. Bonafide of the applicant is further explicit from the fact except for the ligature mark, no other ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for applicant, upto this stage it cannot be said

¶34

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

that the deceased has committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant. No abetment, instigation or conspiracy can be inferred against applicant from the record either. Allegations with regard to demand of additional dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon deceased on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are vague as they are devoid of material particulars. On the above premise, he therefore contends that the said allegation made in the F.I.R. are liable to be ignored by this Court in view of the law laod down by Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6SCC 599. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the jewellery given to the deceased by his parents at the time of the marriage was taken by her parents and was not being returned in spite of repeated demands by appellant. It is on account of above that deceased committed suicide. It is lastly submitted that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 15.02.2022. As such, he has undergone more than four and a half months of incarceration. The police report (charge sheet) has already been submitted therefore, the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has merged on the basis of which it can be said that the custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. 10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State have opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is the husband of the deceased as well as a named and charge-sheeted accused therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The death of deceased has occurred at her marital home within seven years of her marriage. As such, the death of deceased is a dowry death. Applicant is husband of the deceased. The burden is upon the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence as well as his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113B of Evidence Act. However, applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden. Attention of Court was invited to the statement of Urmila Devi, which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who categorically supported the F.I.R.. The disputed defence of applicantis prima facie not so cogent that it an be relied upon and therefore same subject to

¶37

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶38

5

¶39

trial evidence. The suicidal death of the deceased has occurred just after four months and 25 days of her marriage which is wholly unnatural. On the cumulative strength of above, he submits that present application is liable to be rejected by this Court.

¶40

11.. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶41

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with fact that marriage of applicant was solemnined with deceased on 14.09.2021, the occurrence has occurred just after four months and 25 days from the date of marriage i.e. on 09.02.2022, the burden is upon the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence as well as his innocence in terms of Section106 and Section 113B of Evidence Act as the death of the deceased has occurred at her marital home, however, applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden and the submissions urged by the learned A.G.A. which could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage but without making any comments on the merits of the case this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶42

13. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be rejected. 14. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 2.8.2023 "

¶43

5. Learned senior counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to above order dated 02.08.2023, trial of applicant commenced before court below. Upto this stage, only one prosecution witness has deposed before court below. Attention of the Court was then invited to the ordersheet and on basis thereof, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that prosecution witnesses are not appearing before court below. Since the applicant is in custody, therefore, the delay in progress of trial cannot be attributed to the applicant. On the above premise, the learned senior counsel for applicant contends that liberty of applicant cannot be curtailed on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial. It is further submitted that right to speedy trial is now recognized as a fundamental right of an accused. The said right of the accused/applicant stands infringed on account of indifferent approach of the prosecution. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged

¶44

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶45

6

¶46

on bail.

¶47

6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 15.02.2022. As such, he has undergone more than two years and six months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, he thus submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶48

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. He submits that applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused. Applicant is the husband of deceased. The death of deceased has occurred in the house of applicant within seven year of marriage. In fact, the incident has occurred just after four months and 25 days from the date of marriage of deceased with applicant. The death of deceased is thus an unnatural death. P.W.-1, the first informant has deposed before court below and has been declared hostile by court below. Irrespective of above, considering the nature and gravity of offence no opinion can be formed at this stage with reference to the deposition of P.W.-1. According to learned A.G.A. even though, this court is a superior court, dictates of prudence require that no such exercise of evaluating the evidence which has emerged during the pendency of trial be undertaken by this Court as any such exercise undertaken by this Court will amount to per-empting the trial and may prejudice the prosecution or the defence. On the above above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶49

8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶50

9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned

¶51

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶52

7

¶53

A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat application for bail as noted herein above could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned senior counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶54

10. As a result, present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶55

11. It is accordingly rejected."

¶56

Accordingly, applicant has now approached this Court by filing present third application for bail.

¶57

Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused, under incarceration and facing trial before court below, however, irrespective of above, but in view of the facts as have now crystalized on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶58

In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 14.03.2022. As such, applicant has undergone more than 3 years and 6 months of incarceration. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that charge-sheet/police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was submitted by Investigating Office on 19.04.2022. Thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1)(D) Cr.P.C. took cognizance upon same vide cognizance/summoning order dated 09.06.2022. Since offence complained of against applicant is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions resultantly the jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As a consequence of above Sessions Case No.662 of 2022 (State Vs. Udit Pandey and others) came to be registered. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He framed charges against chargesheeted accused including applicant vide framing of charge order dated 22.10.2022. In spite of the fact that a period of more than 2 years and 11 months have rolled by from the date of framing of charge order, the trial of the applicant has not yet concluded. In the charge-sheet/police report there are as many as 23 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. However, up to this stage, the deposition of only 2 prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1-

¶59

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶60

8

¶61

Harvansh Tiwari (brother of the deceased) and PW-2- Urmila Devi (sister of the deceased) have been recorded. On the above premise, it is thus submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the trial of the applicant is not proceeding at the required pace but at a snail's pace. In view of above, there is no possibility of the trial getting concluded in near future.

¶62

At this juncture, the learned counsel for applicant submits that on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial, the right of accused applicant to have speedy trial stands infringed. To lend legal support to his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that since an accused also has a fundamental right to speedy trial, which right of applicant stands infringed in the present case. Applicant is in jail, he therefore cannot be held responsible for the delay in the progress of trial. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶63

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. It is also contended that the charge-sheet/police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. In case applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall hamper the course of trial or shall terrorize the witnesses. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw

¶64

(SC) 373 (Paragraph 5). On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, then in that eventuality, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶65

Per contra, the learned AGA representing State has vehementally opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is husband of the deceased, a named and charge-sheeted accused and undergoing incarceration, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶66

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶67

9

¶68

According to the learned AGA, marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant on 14.09.2021 whereas the unfortunate incident occurred on 09.02.2022 i.e. even before expiry of a period of 6 months from the date of marriage. He therefore contends that in view of above, the death of the deceased who is no one other but wife of applicant is highly unnatural. Since the deceased is wife of applicant and occurrence in question has occurred in the house of the applicant himself and furthermore within a period of 7 months from the date of marriage, therefore, in view of Section 113 of the Evidence Act, the death of the deceased shall be deemed to be a dowry death. Moreover, by reason of provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden is upon applicant to explain the manner of occurrence. Since the said burden has not been discharged by applicant, therefore, no good or sufficient ground has emerged on record so as to enlarge the applicant on bail during the pendency of trial. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected. However, the learned AGA could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this repeat application for bail as noted hereinabove with reference to the record at this stage.

¶69

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made, this Court finds that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this third application for bail are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned AGA with reference to record at this stage. Therefore, considering the above and irrespective of the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to this repeat application for bail and coupled with the fact that prima facie the death of the death is a suicidal death and applicant has undergone more than 3 years and 6 months of incarceration, but without making any comment on the merits of case, this Court finds that applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶70

In view of the discussion made above, the present repeat application for bail thus succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶71

It is accordingly allowed .

¶72

Let the applicant- Udit Pandey , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in

¶73

BAIL No. 33008 of 2025

¶74

10

¶75

the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶76

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶77

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶78

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶79

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶80

September 25, 2025 R.S. Tiwari

¶81

(Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶82

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

Udit Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udit Pandey 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