Allowed

Shivpratap @ Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025BAIL/944/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in a case involving dowry death allegations. The court noted the absence of specific dowry demands in the FIR and that the post-mortem report indicated death by hanging. Considering the delay in incarceration and lack of strong prima facie evidence of dowry death, bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Shivpratap @ Rahul vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17625

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 944 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shivpratap @ Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.160 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Araon, District Firozabad during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and others on 27.7.2024 and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant on 22.2.2019 and after marriage applicant and his family members tortured her for additional demand of dowry and on 27.7.2024 they committed her murder.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is the husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture, he has been made accused in the present matter.

¶10

He further submits that neither in the FIR nor in the statements recorded during investigation informant and other witnesses could disclose any specific demand of dowry and this fact suggests that actually it is not a case of dowry death.

¶11

He further submits that actually deceased was short tempered lady and she was not having any male child even after five years of her marriage, therefore, she always under depression and only due to this reason she committed suicide by hanging herself.

¶12

He further submits that post mortem report also suggests that deceased died due to hanging.

¶13

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 31.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than six months.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and there is also an allegation of demand of dowry and torture but he could not dispute the fact that neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation there was any specific demand of dowry. Learned AGA also could not dispute, deceased died due to hanging.

¶15

Learned AGA, however, further submits that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but he fairly conceded, that case relates to minor offence.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and torture but neither in the FIR nor in the statements recorded during investigation informant and other witnesses could disclose, what

¶18

was the demand of dowry, therefore, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is not a case of dowry death, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶19

Further, post mortem report of the deceased suggests that deceased died due to hanging, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that it is not a case of suicidal death.

¶20

Further, however, it appears that applicant is also involved in one another case but that case relates to minor offence.

¶21

Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 31.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than six months.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Let the applicant- Shivpratap @ Rahul 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 SKM

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivpratap @ Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivpratap @ Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kailashnath Shukla vs State of U.P.

Pawan Nishad vs State of U.P.

Nishu Devi vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kushwah vs State of U.P.

Shafeeq Alias Gatua vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Verma vs State of U.P.