HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3358 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, Shri Umar Farooq, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.3.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime Crime No.267 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80, 80(2), 103(1) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Manduadeeh, District- Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. His love marriage with deceased was solemnized on 27.5.2021. In between, deceased was suffering from tuberculosis but due to certain reason her treatment was not completed and was stopped after three months. Alleged incident occurred on Kapoorthala at Punjab where appellant was working as a Senior Civil Engineer in Railways. Deceased was residing with him at Kapoothala. At the time of incident, appellant was on his duty. However, one of the tenants Bhanu Lalwati, who also resides in the same house in which the appellant was resided with the deceased, has stated that when he returned from his office on 9.11.2024, he saw that deceased was vomiting blood and then he called the appellant at his house. Thereafter, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Daya Shankar, Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, Pankaj Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Jamil Ahamad Azmi Abhishek Sharma .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) both of them took her in the vehicle of one Baldev Singh at Civil Hospital. When she reached the hospital, she was declared dead by the doctors. It was further stated that vehicle owner Anoop, who alongwith tenant and appellant had taken the deceased to the hospital, has also corroborated the version of tenant-Bhanu Lalwati. Learned counsel has submitted that the alleged incident occurred at Kapoorthala and dead body of deceased was brought to Varanasi for cremation. When the dead body reached at Varanasi, informant and family members became suspicious and demanded for postmortem. After the postmortem was conducted, the first information report on false and concocted story was lodged agaisnt the appellant. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel appearing for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have drew the attention towards the injuries sustained by the deceased. It has been submitted that deceased has sustained six injuries on her person and doctor has opined that her death has occurred due to haemorrhagic shock. It was submitted that informant and his family members have made allegation against the appellant, who was torturing the deceased for unfulfilled demand of dowry. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 6. It appears from the statement of Bhanu Lalwati that deceased was vomiting blood at the time when he reached at his house from office. Bhanu Lalwati and another witness Baldev have also stated that deceased was taken by them at a hospital where she was declared dead. Appellant has also annexed certain prescription which indicate that deceased was undergoing treatment of tuberculosis and, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that deceased might have died by certain chronic disease. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting CRLA No. 3358 of 2025 2 the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. 8. Let the appellant- Abhishek Sharma involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant 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 or tamper with the evidence. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 8, 2025 SK CRLA No. 3358 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad