Dismissed¶24

Rahul Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2025BAIL/8082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Section 306 I.P.C.; Case Crime No. 0517 of 2023; P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow; dowry demand; death by hanging; ligature mark; six injuries caused by beating not fall; doctor's statement to investigating officer; drunkenness / slip-from-stairs defence; chargesheet dated 15.02.2024; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 8082 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:22477; Subhash Vidyarthi J.; order date 21.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

The nature of the allegations, the findings of the postmortem examination report and the statement of the doctor do not make out a case for exercise of this Court's discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail; the bail application is accordingly rejected. ¶23

Rahul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22477

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8082 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhaat Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Parashuram Mishra

¶5

Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prabhaat Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0517 of 2023, under Section 306 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.12.2023 against the applicant and his mother Nimmo Mishra, stating that the informant had got his sister married to the applicant on 09.12.2015. The applicant and his mother used to harass her for demanding additional dowry. Sometime ago, they had tried to kill her by setting her ablaze and thereafter a settlement was entered into between the parties but in spite of it, the behavior of the accused persons did not improve and ultimately they killed her on 23.12.2023. Upon reach the applicant’s house, the informant found the dead-body of his sister hanging from a ceiling fan. The applicant and his mother were present there and two daughters of the deceased were not present.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶10

Para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application reads as follows:

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

“15. That the deceased was a hyper-independent woman and had a habit of outing, eating at hotel and restaurant, partying and hanging out and was also a heavy drinker. Further, it is of utmost necessity to point out here that on the day before her death she was totally drunk and because of this she slipped from the stairs of her matrimonial house and received injuries in her leg and knees. After that incident the applicant/accused Rahul Mishra, husband of the deceased insisted to take her to the doctor but she denied because she was drunk and said that she will manage. The true photographs of the deceased in which she is consuming alcohol is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this bail application.”

¶13

Two photographs of the deceased showing her sitting in a car and holding a bottle of liquor in one hand and a glass apparently containing liquor in other hand, have been annexed with the bail application. Two photographs taken at the time of birthday celebrations of the deceased’s daughter have also been annexed.

¶14

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the material collected during investigation and a copy of the chargesheet dated 15.02.2024.

¶15

A copy of the statement of the doctor recorded by the investigating officer has been annexed with the counter affidavit wherein the doctor has stated that besides a ligature mark, the deceased had received as many as six other injuries which could have been caused by beating only and which could not have been caused because of a fall.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the doctor has not stated anything about the duration of the injuries and the injuries were not caused in close proximity of the incident.

¶17

The photographs annexed with the counter affidavit projecting the deceased as consuming liquor show her in a perfect physical condition and in para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that on the day before her death the deceased was totally drunk and because of this she slipped from the stairs. Therefore, it is own case of the applicant that the injuries were caused a day before but the doctor has found that the injuries could not have

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

been caused because of a fall and those injuries have been caused because of beating only.

¶20

In reply to the submission, learned Additional Government AdvocateI has submitted that in case the applicant contends that his wife had suffered injuries on a day prior to the incident, he should have produced some material to show that he had taken appropriate steps for her treatment, which the applicant has failed to do.

¶21

The learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the inquest report mentions that two glass bangles were present on both the hands of the dead-body. Had the deceased been beaten up, the bangles would have been broken.

¶22

In reply to the said submission, learned Additional Government Advocate-I has submitted that the deceased had suffered all the injuries on her knees and legs and no injury had been caused on her hands and, therefore, the facts that the bangles had not been broken, would not help the applicant.

¶23

Without making any further observation, which may affect the outcome of the trial, I am of the considered view that the nature of allegations, the findings of the postmortem examination report and the statement of the doctor do not make out a case for exercise of discretion of this Court for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶26

Order Date: 21.04.2025 MVS/-

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Ashish Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Lal Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neeraj Lodh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Rahul Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

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