Allowed

Mohd. Sharif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025CRLA/3176/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the appellant convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court considered long incarceration, the nature of the offence, and the pending appeal, imposing conditions regarding fine deposit and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to depositing 50% fine within two weeks and cooperating in the appeal.

Mohd. Sharif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3176 of 2024

Mohd. Sharif

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

		.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Akhlaq Ali, Anil Shabana Akhlaq	Kumar	Pandey,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Mohd.Saulat Ahmad Khan	Wasim,	Saleem

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

(Order on Bail Application)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.36, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.113 of 2018 "State versus Mohd. Sharif", arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Masauli, District Barabanki, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act with maximum punishment for 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith default fine stipulation.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the prosecution's case, the deceased, Shaheen, was married to the appellant on 27.04.2011, according to Muslim rights and rituals. The appellant and his family members used to harass and torture her due to the non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand i.e. a four-wheeler. The appellant contracted a second marriage prior to the incident on 16/17.02.2018, on which the deceased died in natural circumstances. In postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera

¶14

CRLA No. 3176 of 2024

¶15

¶16

report revealed presence of Aluminium Phosphate (poison) and on that basis, it was ascertained that she died due to consumption of poison.

¶17

He further submitted that the appellant has been implicated in the case only due to suspicion. The allegations regarding the additional demand of dowry, harassment and torture of the deceased against the appellant are concocted and baseless. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses themselves, it appears that the applicant was not present at the time of the incident as they have alleged that he left his residence with another girl, with whom he contracted a second marriage and was not traceable at the time of the lodging of the FIR.

¶18

Learned counsel further submitted that no injury marks were found on the body of the deceased. From the hospital record, it is obvious that the deceased was hospitalized at 3:50 P.M. on 17.02.2018 by her husband/ appellant. This fact exculpates the applicant from the offence. An alternate charge under Section 302 IPC was not proved against him and he has been convicted, inter alia, for a charge under Section 304-B IPC.

¶19

He lastly submitted that the appellant has been held in jail custody for about 28 months during trial and after conviction. He has undergone two years and four months of imprisonment against a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years awarded to him in the impugned judgment and order. He undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future due to huge backlog.

¶20

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant failed to explain the circumstances under which the deceased died, an unnatural death by consumption of poison; the offense is of a serious nature and this fact makes no reference that the accused were not charge-sheeted.

¶21

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the offence, the role assigned to the appellant/ applicant, the long incarceration of the applicant, the nature of evidence led against him, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit

¶22

CRLA No. 3176 of 2024

¶23

¶24

case for the grant of bail.

¶25

Let the appellant/ applicant, Mohd. Sharif , convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The amount of 50% fine will be deposited within two weeks of the release of the appellant/ applicant on bail and the remaining 50% fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

¶27

(ii) The appellant/ applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of this appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶28

(iii) The appellant/ applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶29

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

¶30

The trial court is directed to transmit the photo copies of personal bond and bond of sureties filed by the appellant/ applicant to this Court at the earliest.

¶31

Observations made here-in-above by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶32

(Order on Appeal)

¶33

List in due course.

¶34

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶35

December 1, 2025

¶36

Mohd. Sharif

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sharif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sharif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Sangeeta Gond vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Bhawana Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Aashad Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Otehrs

Kalinga Patna Gauri vs Union of India Thru. Itelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow

Gufran Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another