Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28848 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39235 of 2024 Applicant :- Prateek Dwivedi @ Lucky Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- B.K. Shukla,Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunita Chauhan Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manav Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 524 of 2024, under Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.07.2024 against applicant and his family members and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 08.02.2015 and after marriage applicant and his family members tortured her for additional demand of Rs. 5 lakhs. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant also used to torture her under intoxication and also called her characterless and due to above reasons on 26.07.2024 she committed suicide by hanging herself. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, deceased died on 26.07.2024 but FIR was lodged on 28.07.2024, therefore, there is delay of two days in lodging the FIR and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is based on false facts. 6. He further submits, actually deceased i.e. wife of the applicant appeared in one competitive examination but subsequently that examination was cancelled and applicant also used to consume liquor, therefore, due to these reasons she was unhappy and very often matrimonial dispute arose between husband and wife and on the date of incident some matrimonial dispute again arose between them and this time she in anger hanged herself and thereafter on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 7. He further submits, except the bald and verbal allegation that applicant tortured the deceased for want of Rs. 5 lakhs, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record in this regard. 8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.08.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife committed suicide due to his torture, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record but could not dispute the fact that except the bald and verbal allegation that applicant used to torture the deceased for want of Rs. 5 lakhs there is no other evidence on record in this regard. They further could not dispute the fact that deceased died after nine years of her marriage and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.08.2024. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation, he used to torture her for demand of Rs. 5 lakhs but except the bald and verbal allegation there is no cogent evidence of torture for Rs. 5 lakhs on record. Further, even as per prosecution deceased died after more than nine years of her marriage. 12. Further, considering the fact that it is a case of suicide and reason of suicide disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of argument, cannot be brushed aside at this stage. 13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.08.2024. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant - Prateek Dwivedi @ Lucky 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:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (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. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 17. 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. 18. 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. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad