Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111616 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45998 of 2024 Applicant :- Jaipal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Maurya,Safal Pandey,Virendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Suraj Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Safal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Amroha Nagar, District- Amroha, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased/informant as per Hindu Rites on 27.6.2023. Subsequently, the victim got impregnated and she was beaten up by the applicant and his family members on 7.6.2024 at about 04:00 p.m. and again was beaten up on 8.6.2024 at about 06:00 a.m. and even the applicant had threatened to put her to death. The informant informed her family members who reached there and got the FIR instituted on 8.6.2024 at about 07:04 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR was instituted U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. only. After the institution of FIR, the medical examination of the deceased was conducted and only two simple injuries were found on her body. One was blue contusion of size in an area of 10 cm x 4 cm on left-side of face and another was the complaint of pain in abdomen as she was having seven months' pregnancy. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the investigation was taken up and the Investigating Officer was pleased to file final report (charge-sheet) against the applicant U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. only, as such, no grievous injury was observed on the body of the victim. Subsequent to it, some complications arose and the deceased gave birth to a baby-girl in hospital on 27.6.2024 as per the statement of her brother and the said baby-girl expired after delivery. Subsequent to it, the deceased experienced certain complications and was admitted in Asian Super Specialty Hospital, Sambhal, whereby her condition worsened, as such, she was deliberately taken away by her attendants from the hospital on 29.6.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the said discharge summary indicates the patient to have been discharged as LAMA (Leave Against Medical Advice). It is also mentioned in the discharge summary that the patient is being LAMA with hemodynamically unstable condition. The risk factor has been explained to the attendants. Learned counsel has stated that subsequent to it the deceased expired on 5.7.2024 at AIIMS, Rishikesh and her autopsy was conducted. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the autopsy report indicates that there were injuries on her right arm, left arm and back of chest but no injury has been observed on any internal part of her body. No injury has been observed on the abdomen of deceased. The cause of death has been found to be septicemic shock. The deceased had undergone complications due to pregnancy and due to improper treatment rendered to her and the callous approach of her attendants, as such, she had expired due to septicemic shock. 9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations of demand of dowry have been subsequently raised. There were no such allegations at the stage of institution of FIR. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.8.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and has fairly conceded the fact that ultrasound examination of the deceased was conducted on 10.6.2024 and the victim/deceased was found pregnant by seven months and no injury was observed in it. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the discharge summary of the deceased coupled with the fact that there were no allegations of demand of dowry at the time of institution of FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Jaipal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad