Nitin Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0077/2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 16.04.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakh and bullet motor-cycle thereby administered her poisonous injection, thereby led her to death by slow poisoning on 27.03.2024.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. No signs of slow poisoning has been observed by the doctor conducting the autopsy and the cause of death could not be ascertained and as such, the viscera was preserved. The viscera report indicates that organochlorine insecticide was found in it. The said o

¶14

BAIL No. 9122 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

organochlorine insecticide cannot be administered through muscular or intravenous injection and as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased was a lady of bad temper and used to abscond from the house every now and then. Even the applicant has filed a missing report on Mahila Help Desk of Police Office, Bijnor on 27.10.2023 regarding the information of her missing and as such, it is a clear-cut case of committal of suicide by the deceased person.

¶18

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.04.2024 and as such, he is incarcerated for about 1 year 5 months and the trial is not moving ahead. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶20

In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N. AIR 1973 SC 501 , the Supreme Court has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed by one day, there is not sign of any slow poison to the deceased person, the period of incarceration of the

¶22

BAIL No. 9122 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let the applicant- Nitin Agarwal , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶26

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶30

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶31

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶32

September 9, 2025 #Vik/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitin Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Agarwal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P at Lucknow and 3 Others

Sonu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sajid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others