Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 99450 (ALL)

PINTU PATEL v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/32607/2025 · 2025-09-22

Sanjay Kumar Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32607 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2-By means of this bail application, applicant-Pintu Patel who is involved in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, under sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant-Sukhraj, who is father of the deceased got a first information report lodged on 11.02.2025 against Pintu Patel, Hanuman Prasad, who are husband and father-in-law of the deceased as well as against the mother-in-law of the deceased stating inter-alia that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized two years' back with Pintu Patel (applicant) but after the said marriage, his daughter was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home. F.I.R. further alleges that when the deceased made a complaint about her harassment, complainant called her to his house and kept her for 3-4 months. Thereafter, under a compromise, he send his daughter back to her matrimonial home where she was done to death by her in-laws. The information about the said incident was received to him by his relative. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the deceased and her sister was solemnized with the present applicant and his cousin respectively. The applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case making false allegation of demand of dowry. It is further submitted that in this case, F.I.R. was lodged after cremating the dead body of the deceased i.e. on 11.02.2025. The information about the said incident was given by Ramdas to the parents of the deceased and since it is a case of suicide, the applicant who is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar, Nek Muhammad Khan, Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pintu Patel .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) languishing in jail since 12.02.2025 may be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of first information report by contending that neither the applicant had given the information about the said incident to the parents of the deceased nor to the police and even at the time of inquest proceedings, applicant as well as his other family members were not present. In this case, charge has also been framed against the applicant on 08.05.2025. The deceased died within short span of time after her marriage, hence, in the light of provisions of Section 117 and 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the deceased died her unnatural death within short span of her marriage i.e. on 09.02.2025 in her matrimonial home. There is nothing on record to indicate that any information has been given by the applicant to the parents of the deceased or to the police. As per post-mortem report of the deceased, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. This Court is also of the view that the applicant being husband of the deceased was not only responsible for the safety and welfare of his wife, but also under heavy onus to explain her unnatural death, which took place in his own house. 7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 23, 2025 Saurabh BAIL No. 32607 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad