Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85712 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7008 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Singh Parihar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaskar Bhadra,Rajveer Chaurasiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dev Prakash Sharma,G.A.,Priyanka Devi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Sandeep Singh Parihar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, under Sections 108 & 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba. 5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 02.01.2025 by Arvind against the applicant and two other persons alleging therein that his daughter was studying in class 11th. In February 2024 Sandeep Prahihar his brother-in-law by relation lured and enticed his daughter away. With great difficulty he came to know that he has kept his daughter in Mahoba in the house of his sister Chanda. On prayer to relatives and after giving information at police station the sister and brother-in-law of Sandeep called him and when he reached there he found him present with his daughter at the stand and then on fear and disrepute he brought back his daughter. Later on Sandeep called his daughter and forced her to continue the illicit relationship with him which was told by his daughter to his wife that Sandeep often used to call on phone and torture her and used to tell her that if she does not continue with the relationship he would get her defamed and disreputed and no one would marry her and he would murder her family members and on the said threat he continued torture and harassment of his daughter. The other accused persons used to take his side. He used to call his daughter often and pressurize her. On 31.12.2024 at about 12 pm his daughter consumed some poisonous substance after which she was referred to Jhansi for treatment and while taking her she died on the way. She also wrote a suicide note in which she has levelled the responsibility of her death on Sandeep. A report be lodged and action be taken. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 02 days despite the fact that the first informant was a witness of inquest. It is submitted that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicant has no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 38 and is in jail since 06.01.2025. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is a suicide note of the deceased in which she has hold the applicant responsible for her suicide. It is submitted that Bharat Singh is an eye- witness to the incident. It is submitted while placing compliance affidavit dated 19.05.2025 that the viscera of the deceased was preserved which after examination was found to contain Aluminium Phosphide poison. It is submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab: 2024 INSC 634, SLP (Crl.) 1891 of 2024 decided on 06.05.2025 (paragraph 14) that looking to the sensitivity of the matter with regard to social context where honor and shame of the deceased heavily weighed offence is established, the prayer for bail be rejected. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. The applicant being relative of the first informant and the deceased lured and enticed her away and used to exploit her. There is a suicide note implicating the applicant in the matter. No ground for bail exists. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad