Genna Prasad vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Genna Prasad vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Genna Prasad to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 488 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: cooperation with expeditious disposal of trial and regular attendance; no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or tampering with evidence; no involvement in criminal activity after release; verification of identity, status and residential proof of sureties by the court concerned before release; breach of conditions entitles the court concerned to cancel bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Genna Prasad should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 488 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 238(B) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ramkola District-Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

The learned A.G.A. could not dispute that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of Madhu, who according to the prosecution case was the first person to give information about the incident to the father of the deceased.

Ratio / Principle

From the statements of villagers Jaglal, Anil and Gyan Kushwaha it is clear that the dead body of the deceased was not cremated secretly, because as per custom in the village they had also given wood for cremation.

Key takeaways

The complainant, even in his statement recorded during the investigation, did not disclose the fact that when and by which mode he received information from his younger daughter.ratio¶13
Parameters for considering bail during the trial and after conviction of the accused are entirely different.ratio¶13
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, material evidence on record and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — grant of. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., order dated 24.2.2025) allowed the bail application of Genna Prasad, father-in-law of the deceased Ranjana, in Case Crime No. 488 of 2024, P.S. Ramkola, District Kushinagar, under Sections 80(2), 85, 238(B) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, arising from allegations of dowry demand (Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle), harassment and strangulation of the deceased on 09.11.2024; applicant in custody since 13.12.2024 with no criminal history. The Court noted: (i) the Investigating Officer did not record the statement under Section 180 BNSS of Madhu, who according to the prosecution was the first person to inform the deceased's father of the incident; (ii) villagers Jaglal, Anil and Gyan Kushwaha stated the body was not cremated secretly, wood having been given per village custom; and (iii) the complainant did not disclose when or by which mode he received the information. Holding that parameters for bail during trial differ from those after conviction, the Court found a prima facie case for bail and released the applicant on a personal bond and two sureties with conditions, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail issue and would not affect the trial.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26417

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6336 of 2025

Applicant :- Genna Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 488 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 238(B) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ramkola District-Kushinagar during the pendency of trial.

As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of deceased-Ranjana lodged a First Information Report on 10.11.2024 for the offence under Sections 80(2), 238(b) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Rajvant, Genna (applicant), Preeti and Sapna, who are husband, father-in-law and sistersin-law of the deceased respectively alleging therein that marriage of his daughter was solemnized in the year 2019 but on account of additional demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle in dowry, she was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home. On 09.11.2024 at about 3:00 pm his daughter was strangled to death by the accused persons and thereafter they had cremated her body without giving information to him. After cremation, information about the said incident was given by Vishal (cousin of husband of the deceased) to his younger daughter Madhu on Phone.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation of the complainant that

deceased was strangled to death by the accused persons is false and against the material evidence as available on record. In fact suddenly Smt. Ranjana felt pain in her chest, thereafter, family members were taking her to the hospital but she died on the way. Information about the said incident was immediately given to her parents and they along with other relatives participated in funeral. Since deceased died her natural death, hence her post-mortem was not done. Much emphasize has been given by contending that as per the case of prosecution, the informant who is father of the deceased has received information about the incident from his younger daughter Madhu but during investigation, the Investigating Officer did not record the statement under Section 180 of BNSS of Madhu. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation in a fair manner because he, in collusion with the informant, has written false statement under Section 180 of BNSS of husband of the deceased in the case diary by setting up concocted story on his own, which is not admissible in evidence. The Investigating Officer did not make sincere effort to conduct fair investigation. It is also submitted that except the oral statement of witnesses of prosecution side, there is no corroborative material in support of allegations levelled against the accused persons. 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 is father-in-law and languishing in jail since 13.12.2024 having no criminal history to his credit 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.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety. I find that though the learned A.G.A for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute

that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of Madhu, who according to the prosecution case was the first person to give information about the incident to the father of the deceased. From the statement of villagers, namely, Jaglal, Anil and Gyan Kushwaha also, it is clear that dead body of the deceased was not cremated secretly because as per custom in the village, they had also given wood for cremation. I also find that complainant even in his statement recorded during the investigation did not disclose the fact that when and by which mode, he received information from his younger daughter. This Court is of the view that parameters for considering bail during the trial and after conviction of the accused are entirely different. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, material evidence on record and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail.

Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

Let the applicant- Genna Prasad , 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:

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

(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.

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

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

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

It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Arti

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad