Safika @ Safik Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants in relation to FIR/Case Crime No.0309/2025, under Sections 85, 108 of BNS, Police Station - Matera, District - Bahraich.

¶13

For the purposes of entertaining the present application and for granting interim protection to the applicants, this Court considered various aspects of the case as pointed out by the Counsel for the parties who are present before this Court today including the following :

¶14

(i) The applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶15

(ii) Applicant No.1-Safika @ Safik Khan is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceasedNazia and applicant No.2-Puttan Khan is the father-in-law (Sasur) of the deceased Nazia.

¶16

(iii) The deceased - Nazia solemnized marriage with one Akhtar 05 years ago from the date of incident i.e. 11/12.12.2025.

¶17

(iv) On account of the matrimonial dispute/discard, the marriage of the deceased Nazia and Akhtar could not continue and therefore these persons separated from each other and in regard to the separation, the first husband of the deceased Nazia namely Akhtar deposited Rs.2,70,000/- in the bank account of Sakira Bano (mother of the deceased) W/o Sabir Ali and these facts are apparent from the copy of the compromise dated 06.08.2025 entered into between the deceased and her father, which is annexed as Annexure No.4.

¶18

NABAIL No. 493 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

(v) The above referred compromise also indicates that the amount was not provided to the deceased and therefore some altercation took place and the father of the deceased agreed to provide Rs.70,000/- on 16.08.2025.

¶21

(vi) Second marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Hasib S/o Puttan Khan (applicant No.2) and the real brother of applicant No.1 on 22.06.2025.

¶22

(vii) On account of matrimonial dispute/discard the deceased-Nazia left her matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., registered as Case No.853/11/25 (Nazia Vs. Hasib Khan).

¶23

(viii) This case was decided, based upon the compromise entered into between the parties on 26.08.2025 by the Family Court, Bahraich. The order referred dated 26.08.2025 is extracted herein under :-

¶24

"26-08-2025

¶25

पत्रावली पेश हुई। उभयपक्ष की ओर से उपिस्थत आये। उभयपक्ष की ओर से प्राथर्ना पत्र 9ए प्रस्तुत कर कथन िकया गया िक मुकदमा उपरोक्त में दोनों पक्षों के मध्य आपसी सुलह समझौता हो गया है। दोनो पक्ष अलग अलग जीवन िनवार्ह करेंगे तथा एक दूसरे से कोई मतलब नहीं रहेगा और न ही एक दूसरे के िवरूद्ध कोई मुकदमा दायर करेंगे। अतः श्रीमान् जी से प्राथर्ना है िक पक्षकारों द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना पत्र सुलहनामा स्वीकार कर सुलहनामा की शतोर्ं के आधार पर मुकदमा उपरोक्त िनणीर्त िकये जाने की आज्ञा प्रदान की जाये।

¶26

सुना तथा पत्रावली का पिरशीलन िकया।

¶27

पत्रावली के पिरशीलन से स्पष्ट है िक वाद उपरोक्त अन्तगर्त धारा 144 बी.एन.एस.एस. प्रस्तुत िकया गया था। वाद उपरोक्त में उभयपक्ष के मध्य आपसी सुलह समझौता हो गया है तथा पक्षकार अलग अलग रहेंगे। पक्षकारों के मध्य अब कोई िववाद शेष नहीं है। ऐसी पिरिस्थित में वाद उपरोक्त प्राथर्ना पत्र 9 ए के प्रकाश में िनस्तािरत िकये जाने योग्य है।

¶28

आदेश

¶29

मुकदमा सं०-853/11/2025, नािजया बनाम हसीब खान, प्राथर्ना पत्र 9ए के प्रकाश में िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है। पत्रावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।"

¶30

(ix) A perusal of the order, referred above, shows that the parties were agreed to live separately and pursuant to the order passed by the Family Court, the deceased was living in the house of Sabir Ali (father of the deceased).

¶31

(x) Upon due medical examination of the body of the deceased, the autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death is 'Asphyxia' due to 'Antemortem Hanging'.

¶32

(xi) This Court also considered that the fact, as stated, that the present case is purely a case of suicide and as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997,

¶33

NABAIL No. 493 of 2026

¶34

3

¶35

decided on 27-5-2008 (P&H), "A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment".

¶36

(xii). It is case of suicide and the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) SCC Online SC 873 , the applicants are entitled for the interim protection.

¶37

(xiii). The presumption against the applicants is rebuttable, and it is for the prosecution first to establish its case so as to attract the aforesaid statutory provision.

¶38

(xiv). Considering the aforesaid facts and also that it is a case of suicide and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements including the judgments, referred above, the applicants are entitled to be released on interim bail bail.

¶39

(xv) This Court also took note of the fact as pointed by the counsel for the applicants that it appears that the deceased committed suicide as the amount i.e. Rs.2,70,000/provided by Akhtar (first husband of the deceased), which could be the amount of Meher, was not provided by the mother and father of the deceased to the deceasedNazia.

¶40

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the applicants are entitled to interim protection.

¶41

Taking note of the aforesaid, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicants - Safika @ Safik Khan and Puttan Khan be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station/Court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶42

(i) That the accused-applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶43

(ii) That the accused-applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and

¶44

(iii) That the accused-applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶45

Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within three working days.

¶46

NABAIL No. 493 of 2026

¶47

4

¶48

List/put up this case on 31.03.2026, in top 30 cases along with service report.

¶49

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit.

¶50

In addition to the above, let notice be also served upon the opposite party No.2 through the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned regarding the pendency of the present bail application and the date fixed in the case.

¶51

Learned AGA is directed to communicate this order to the SHO concerned forthwith and place the proof regarding the information given by the S.H.O. concerned to the opposite parties by way of an affidavit when the case is listed next.

¶52

It is also made clear that on the next date of listing, if the service is found sufficient and no one appears to oppose the present anticipatory bail application on behalf of the opposite party No.2, then in that eventuality the case would not be adjourned and an appropriate order(s) would be passed on first call including an order adversarial to the opposite party No.2.

¶53

March 19, 2026

¶54

ML/-

¶55

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶56

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Safika @ Safik Khan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safika @ Safik Khan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Noore @ Noor Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sushil Kumar Yadav @ Sushil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

M/S Aditya Traders Songaon Thru. Proprietor Shyam Kishore Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

X , Juvenile Delinquent in Case Crime No. 463/2025, Thru. His Mother Nature Guardian Sitapur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

M/S Awadh Traders Thru. Authorized Signatory Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others