Sanjai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38478

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6073 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjai

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalu Prasad Bhatt,Rashmi Srivastava,Sachin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Lalu Prasad Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

By means of this bail application, the applicant, who is involved in case crime No. 61/2025, under Sections 85, 108 B.N.S., Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

Brief facts of this case are that an FIR dated 21.03.2025 has been lodged under Sections 85 & 108 B.N.S., 2023 alleging therein that due to physical harassment of the daughter of the informant without any cause, the daughter of the informant committed suicide on 14.03.2025. Prior to that also, the applicant used to harass her and the Gram Pradhan had taken the responsibility that the daughter of the complainant will not be harassed any more in future.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the marriage was solemnized about eight years ago from the date of incident with the deceased (Jyoti) and from the wedlock, a son was born and they were leading a happy married life.

¶11

It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of seven days for the reason that the father and other family members of the deceased (Jyoti) were demanding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakh) from the applicant which was denied by him and only thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the applicant.

¶12

It is further submitted that the Pradhan in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. had not stated that he had given assurance when the dispute arose between the parties earlier as alleged in the FIR and the statements of the informant and other family members of the deceased.

¶13

It is further submitted that none of the ingredients of Sections 85 & 108 B.N.S., 2023 is attracted in the present case for the reason that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty by the

¶14

applicant and his family members and the essential ingredients for attracting the provision regarding abetment of suicide is also not attracted for the reason that the basic ingredients i.e. intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severence or absence of any of these constituents would militate against the said indictment. It is also a settled proposition of law in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh [2001 (9) SCC 618] that Section 498A IPC/85 BNS and 306 IPC/108 BNS are independent and constitute different offences merely because the accused is found guilty under Section 498A, he should not necessarily be held to be guilty under Sections 85 & 108 B.N.S. on the basis of severence.

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 13.04.2025 and her mother has also surrendered so nobody is at home to look after his minor son.

¶16

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions and the case diary has fairly submitted that the statements of villagers namely Radhe Shyam s/o Ram Lotan, Shiv Kumar s/o Ram Dheeraj, Dukhi Ram s/o Chedan, Smt. Dhanpata w/o Pyare Lal have also been recorded during the investigation and in their statements, they have stated that 2-3 days prior to Holi (which was on 14.03.2025) there was heated argument between the applicant and his deceased wife (Jyoti) as she was adamant to go to her Maika for celebrating Holi which was denied or refused by the applicant. However, he is unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it is found that at present or during the investigation, no direct material/evidence has been found to make out a case under Sections 85 & 108 B.N.S., 2023, thus, it is found that it is a fit case for grant of bail in favour of the applicant.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant - Sanjai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed

¶23

by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.7.2025

¶25

Nitesh