Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 241 (ALL)

Subhash Chandra Verma v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sameer Jain, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 669 of 2024, under Sections 108, 352, 351(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and his family members and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 11.06.2017 and after marriage applicant and his family members used to torture her for dowry and on 23.11.2024 they informed the informant that his daughter fell ill and he should come to the hospital and during treatment on 24.11.2024 his daughter died. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is husband but on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits, as per allegation, due to the abatement of the applicant his wife committed suicide but except the bald and verbal allegation of demand of dowry there is no cogent evidence of abatement on record. 6. He further submits, neither in the FIR nor in the statement informant could disclose what was the demand of dowry due to which applicant and his family members tortured the deceased. He further submits, actually financial condition of the applicant was very poor and only due to this reason his wife committed suicide by hanging herself. 7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 30.11.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he tortured the deceased due to demand of dowry, therefore, deceased committed suicide but from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that what was the demand of dowry and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence of abatement against the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. 11. Further, reason of suicide of the deceased given by the applicant in the instant bail application cannot be completely brushed aside. 12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 30.11.2024. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Subhash Chandra Verma 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. 16. 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. 17. 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.