Pawan Verma @ Pustdev Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 364 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dhanepur, District Gonda.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that sister of informant was married to the applicant in the year 2018 and sufficient dowry was also paid. However on account of non payment of dowry the entire matrimonial family had killed her and had concealed the body. Subsequently the body of the victim was recovered in a river. In the light of the said allegations learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the post mortem report which indicate that the cause of death could not be ascertained. The hyoid bone was found to be intact. Subsequently based upon the perusal of the photographs, a prima facie view was formed that formed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling by the state medico legal expert. In the very said report it was indicated that for better opinion the videography should he seen. It is submitted that no videography had been seen. The applicant is the husband. It is further argued that the three prosecution witness have already been examined. He further argues that the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 498A, 304B, 201 and ¾ DP Act.

¶14

BAIL No. 404 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the informant strongly opposed the bail application by arguing that the applicant did not only kill the victim but also tried to conceal the body as is evident from the inquest report and the post mortem report as recorded herein above.

¶17

5. Considering the submissions made at the bar prima facie in terms of the argument of learned counsel for the informant the applicant ought to have been prosecuted under Section 302 IPS whereas in the criminal case the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The opinion of medico legal experts are at variance. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can adversely affect the trial enlarged on bail

¶18

6. Considering these facts that three witness have already been examined and the applicant has suffered from pre trial detention of two years, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 29.11.2023 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶19

7. Let the applicant Pawan Verma @ Pustdev Verma be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶21

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶22

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶24

October 31, 2025 J. K. Dinkar

¶25

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pawan Verma @ Pustdev Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Verma @ Pustdev Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Atul Dhuriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Chhedi Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Aman Gautam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ayush Kumar Bari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ramanuj Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.