Waseem Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51705

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7246 of 2025

Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi holding brief of Sri Kapil Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Waseem, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.181 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kuwargaon, District Budaun.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 23.9.2023 by Sharafat against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that his daughter Shabnam was married to the applicant around one year back. There was torture and harassment to her for demand of dowry which was Rs.5 lakh cash. On 22.9.2023 at about 3 p.m., the accused persons murdered his daughter. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations against the applicant and accused persons regarding demand of dowry are totally false and incorrect. It is argued that Sharafat, the first informant has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial court who has not supported the prosecution case, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is argued that Shamshad, the son of the first informant has been examined as P.W.2 before the trial court who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is argued that collectively on perusal of both the statements of the said witnesses it transpires that the applicant has been falsely

¶11

implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per postmortem report cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is argued that co-accused Rahisan has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54594 of 2023, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.11 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 32 of the affidavit and is in jail since 29.9.2023.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within one year and four months of marriage. The first informant before the trial court has supported the prosecution case. Since the trial in the present matter is going on, the release of the applicant at this stage may not in the fitness of things. The co-accused Rahisan who has been granted bail is the mother-in-law of the deceased, as such the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused as applicant is the husband of the deceased.

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within one year and four months of marriage. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Rahisan who is the mother-in-law of the deceased. There is no convincing reason given by the applicant for the death of his wife.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases