Pankaj Nath vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.027/2026, Under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS (Section 304-B, 498A, I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Nighasan, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 26.01.2026 under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS (Sections 304-B, 498A, I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 D.P. Act was registered against three named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized 4 years ago with Sonu Nath (co-accused). The accused persons used to beat and harass the daughter of the informant for dowry demand. His daughter has two children. On 23.01.2026 the accused persons named in the F.I.R. after harassing and beating killed his daughter by strangulating her.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the very next day of the alleged incident it has been informed by the informant to the Police for preparing Panchnama as her daughter died in suspicious circumstances and there was no whisper regarding demand of dowry by the applicant and other family members. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 3rd day of the incident without explaining the delay and come with story of dowry demand.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is brother-in-law of the deceased and he has falsely been implicated alongwith other family members in the present case.

¶16

BAIL No. 3095 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

It is further submitted that as per allegation in the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant wherein it has been stated that after beating her badly the accused persons killed his daughter by strangulating her but the same is not corroborated with the post-mortem report as there was no injury either external or internal on the body of the deceased and the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. It is a case of suicide and there may be several reasons for committing suicide and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) INSC 214 has held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide.

¶19

It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No.3995 of 2022 dated 26.11.2024, wherein it has been observed that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated version of the incident are reflected by making allegation against all the family members and the Court should be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with such complaints. In the said judgement the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741, has also been relied, wherein it has been held that the mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication.

¶20

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and on the basis of instruction received has submitted that there is a case of dowry demand against the applicant but he is unable to dispute the submission raised by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it is found that in the F.I.R. there is no specific allegation against the applicant. The information of alleged incident was given to the police by the informant on the very next day only for making a puchnama without there being allegation for dowry demand and on 3rd day of the incident the F.I.R. has been lodged making vague allegations against all the family members for dowry demand. The ocular evidence alleged by the informant does not corroborate with the post-mortem report i.e. as per post mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and there was no injury found on the body of the deceased, therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

BAIL No. 3095 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶25

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

¶26

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶28

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶31

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶32

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶33

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶34

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶35

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶36

May 7, 2026 Ashish

¶37

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Nath v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Nath v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Similar cases

Amjad Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shubham vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Rajitram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Maniram Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Nitesh Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Chand Saroj @ Suraj Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others