Sumit vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25930

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4897 of 2025

Applicant :- Sumit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ahamad Farhan,Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶7

2-The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 489 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshahr during the pendency of trial.

¶8

3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant, who is mother of the deceased-Reena lodged a first information report on 06.08.2023 with regard to an incident which took place on 03.08.2023 against Sumit (present applicant), Sunil, Maya Devi and Neelam, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-inlaw of the deceased respectively stating inter-alia that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized on 26.04.2017 with the applicant but her in-laws used to harass and torture her on account of non-fulfilment of their demand of dowry. On 03.08.2023 at about 11:00 o'clock, all the accused persons in collusion with each other committed her murder and no information was given to her about the said incident.

¶9

4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the applicant with Reena (deceased) was a love marriage. Since both had eloped from home and had a love marriage, family members of both did not visit them because they were not accepting the said marriage of applicant

¶10

with the deceased, therefore, they were living separately along with their two children. On 03.08.2023 when the applicant was not at home, deceased by consuming some intoxicated drugs committed suicide. When the applicant reached there, he found that the deceased was lying on bed with no response. He also took her to hospital but she was declared by the doctors as brought dead. He immediately gave an information to the owner of the house and to police, who in-turn gave information to the parents of the deceased. Thereafter on 04.08.2023, inquest proceeding of the deceased was conducted and her post-mortem was done on 04.08.2023 at about 08:20 pm and after that, her dead body was cremated by the applicant. The complainant in order to settle her personal score, lodged a F.I.R. after two days' of cremation i.e. on 06.08.2024 with ulterior motive making a false allegation that on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, her daughter was done to death in her matrimonial home, whereas, the said allegation is not corroborated from the post-mortem report. Since cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved and in the viscera report, Tranquillizer (Diazepam) was found. During investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of owner of the house and other witnesses and they all have stated that they have never seen the deceased and applicant quarrelling with each other and since their marriage was a love marriage, they were living separately by taking a room on rent. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it is not a case of murder as alleged by the prosecution but a case of suicide by the deceased herself. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is languishing in jail since 01.06.2024 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently

¶12

opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the deceased died her unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage, therefore, the provisions of Section 113A and 113B of Indian Evidence Act are attracted in the present case, hence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶13

6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that it was the applicant who had given first information about the incident to his house owner and to the police, which shows natural conduct of the applicant in the light of provisions of Section 8 of Evidence Act. Perusal of post-mortem report of the deceased shows that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. In viscera report, Tranquillizer (Diazepam) was found, which is a drug covered under NDPS Act. In case the excessive quantity of Diazepam tablet is taken/consumed by any person, it may cause death. So far as the submission of learned A.G.A. for the State that on account of presumption under the Evidence Act, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected is concerned, there is no dispute that the parameters for considering the bail of accused pending trial and after conviction by the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused.

¶14

7-The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the

¶15

defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court.

¶16

8-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶17

9-Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶18

10-Let the applicant-Sumit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶20

(ii) That 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.

¶21

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶22

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶23

11-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Saurabh

¶25

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

Sumit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit 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

Similar cases

Mohd. Umar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Suddhu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Lko. and Another

Rinku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Khempal vs State of U.P.

Genna Prasad vs State of U.P.

Suresh Chandra vs State of Up and Another