Dismissed¶¶25

Ganesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2025BAIL/3434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection (murder S.302 IPC / criminal intimidation S.504 IPC), Case Crime No. 250 of 2024, PS Jahanabad, District Pilibhit; applicant-husband accused of throwing wife from terrace (incident 22.05.2024); FIR 25.05.2024 initially under Sections 307 & 504 IPC, converted to Section 302 IPC after death; deceased's Section 161 CrPC statement treated as dying declaration implicating applicant; daughter Sakshi (PW-2) hostile/retracted during trial; Investigating Officer not yet examined; custody since 05.06.2024; Sameer Jain, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:20720; decided 13.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

None — bail application rejected at this stage. ¶¶25

Ganesh Kumar vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — bail application rejected at this stage.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Ganesh Kumar, facing charges under Sections 302 & 504 IPC in Case Crime No. 250 of 2024 (PS Jahanabad, District Pilibhit) for allegedly throwing his wife from a terrace causing her death, is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of the trial. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances discussed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage; the bail application is accordingly rejected, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The deceased's statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC before her death is her dying declaration, and at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve it.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Although the applicant's daughter (PW-2) did not support the prosecution case during trial, since she is the applicant's daughter the AGA's argument (that she did not disclose correct facts under the applicant's pressure) cannot be brushed aside at this stage.ratio¶¶21
The claim advanced by counsel for the applicant that he immediately took the deceased to hospital after the incident is not reflected from the record.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application Rejected — Allahabad High Court, Single Bench (Sameer Jain, J.), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3434 of 2025, Order Date 13.2.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:20720). Ganesh Kumar, husband of the deceased, sought bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2024 (Sections 302 & 504 IPC; PS Jahanabad, District Pilibhit), having been in custody since 05.06.2024. He is alleged to have thrown his wife from a terrace on 22.05.2024; the FIR of 25.05.2024, initially under Sections 307 & 504 IPC, was converted to Section 302 IPC after her death. The court held that the deceased's pre-death statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is her dying declaration implicating the applicant, in which there was 'no reason to disbelieve' at this stage. Although the applicant's daughter (PW-2) did not support the prosecution case during trial, the AGA's contention that she may have spoken under the applicant's pressure could not be brushed aside; nor did the record reflect the claim that the applicant himself had admitted the deceased to hospital. With the Investigating Officer who recorded the dying declaration not yet examined before the trial court, the court concluded the applicant was not entitled to bail and rejected the application without expressing any opinion on merits, clarifying that the observations were confined to disposal of the bail application and would bear nothing on the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20720

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3434 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Kashyap,Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2024, under Sections 302, 504 IPC, Police Station Jahanabad, District Pilibhit during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.05.2024 under Sections 307, 504 IPC against applicant and one another and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant about 12 years before and on 22.05.2024 at about 9.00 PM some dispute arose between husband and wife and thereafter applicant and his father i.e. co-accused Yashodanandan threw her from the terrace due to which she sustained serious injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 307, 504 IPC but after the death of the deceased i.e. wife of the applicant case was converted under Section 302 IPC.

¶10

He further submits, however, during investigation when before her death the statement of the wife of the applicant was recorded by the Investigating Officer then she stated that applicant threw her from the roof and similar statement was given by the daughter of the applicant but during trial when daughter of the applicant namely Sakshi was examined as PW-2 then she did not support the prosecution case.

¶11

He further submits, this fact suggests that Investigating Officer on his own recorded both the statements i.e. statement of the deceased and statement of Sakshi during investigation and no reliance can be placed on such testimony.

¶12

He further submits, actually it is a case of accidental death and accidentally deceased fell from the terrace and sustained injuries and subsequently died. He further submits, applicant was the person who admitted her in the hospital and this fact shows his bona fide.

¶13

He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 05.06.2024.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and during investigation before her death when the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer then she categorically stated that applicant threw her from the terrace.

¶15

Learned AGA further submits, till date Investigating Officer could not be examined, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that Investigating Officer on his own taken down the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation.

¶16

Learned AGA further submits, however, daughter of the applicant, who was eye witness during trial did not support the prosecution case but initially in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated against applicant and it appears, as applicant is her father, therefore, during trial under his pressure she did not disclose the correct facts, therefore, no benefit should be extended to the applicant on the ground that during trial she did not support the prosecution case, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

Applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he threw her wife from the terrace due to which she sustained injuries and died.

¶19

From the record, it reflects, before her death deceased in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that applicant threw her from terrace. The statement of the

¶20

deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is her dying declaration and at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve her statement.

¶21

Further, from the record, it also reflects, during investigation when the statement of the daughter of the applicant was recorded then she also stated that applicant threw the deceased from the terrace but it appears, during trial she did not support the prosecution case but considering the fact that she is daughter of the applicant, the argument advanced by learned AGA in this regard cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

¶22

Further, however, as per counsel for the applicant immediately after the incident applicant has taken the deceased to the hospital but from the record this fact could not be reflected.

¶23

Further, applicant is in jail only since 05.06.2024 and till date even statement of the Investigating Officer, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased could not be recorded before the trial court.

¶24

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 AK Pandey

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ganesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rizwan vs State of U.P.

Anees vs State of U.P.

Vinay vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya vs State of U.P.

Teeku Kushwah vs State of U.P.

Surya Mukhi Yadav and 11 Others vs State of Up