Mohit vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4928

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 739 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Pandey,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2024, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Badalpur, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.05.2024 against applicant and his father and according to FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 21.01.2020 and after marriage applicant and his father tortured her and on 12.05.2024 due to their torture, she committed suicide by hanging herself.

¶10

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that however, applicant is the husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter.

¶11

He further submitted that there is no iota in the FIR with regard to demand of dowry but when the statement of the informant was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. then for the first time, he disclosed that there was demand of Rs. 4 lakhs and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently he developed a new story and actually it is not a case of dowry death.

¶12

He further submitted that actually deceased could not be conceived even after 4 years of her marriage and she was short temper lady and only due to this reason, she committed suicide by

¶13

hanging herself.

¶14

He further submitted that immediately after the incident, father of the applicant informed the police and informant side and on his information inquest was conducted and even informant was one of the inquest witness but after inquest, on 14.05.2024 i.e. after 2 days, he lodged the FIR of the present case and this fact again shows that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter.

¶15

He further submitted that even post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that she died due to hanging.

¶16

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 16.05.2024 i.e. for last almost 8 months.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within 4 years of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR of the present case and during investigation for the first time, informant started making allegation that there was demand of Rs. 4 lakhs.

¶18

He further could not dispute the fact that inquest of the deceased was conducted on the information given by father of the applicant and in the inquest, informant was one of the inquest witness but in spite of that he lodged the FIR of the present case after two days. He further could not dispute the fact that deceased died due to hanging.

¶19

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶20

However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within 4 years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of torture but from perusal of the FIR, it reflects that in the FIR, there was no allegation of torture with regard to demand of dowry and for the first time, this fact has been disclosed in the statement of the informant recorded during investigation.

¶21

Further, from the inquest report, it reflects that it was conducted on the application moved by father of the applicant and

¶22

even informant was one of the inquest witness but in spite of that, he lodged the FIR of the present case after 2 days.

¶23

Further, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that deceased died due to hanging, therefore, prima facie, it appears to be case of suicidal death and reason of suicide disclosed by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant during the course of argument, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶24

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 16.05.2024 i.e. for last almost 8 months.

¶25

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶27

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

¶28

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶32

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶33

Order Date :- 9.1.2025/KK Patel

¶34

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harak Singh vs State of U.P.

Hariom vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Verma vs State of U.P.

Tarikat vs State of U.P.

Vishesh Saini Alias Vishwas Alias Sundar vs State of U.P.