Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 515 (ALL)

Mahesh Chandra Pathak v. State of U. P.

2025-03-21

SAMIT GOPAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Samit Gopal, J. 1. List revised. 2. Sri Hemant Kumar Patel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, Advocate appears for the first informant and filed vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Tarun Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure /483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Mahesh Chandra Pathak , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 437 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80, 49 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Bisauli, District Budaun. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions for which time was granted to him vide order dated 05.03.2025. 6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 08.09.2024 by Saurabh Sharma against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that his sister Rachna @ Meenakshi was married to Prashant Pathak the son of the applicant on 18.02.2018 in which he had given gifts as per status but the accused persons were demanding a Wagon R car in dowry due to which they used to torture and harass the deceased. The motorcycle which was given in the marriage was also sold by the accused persons. The accused persons torture and harass his daughter a lot. On 07.09.2024 the deceased called the informant on phone and informed that the accused persons are assaulting her and threatening her on which he told her that he will come in the evening. In the evening when he reached there he found his sister lying dead. The accused persons have murdered his sister. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Prashant Pathak on 18.02.2018 and the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 07.09.2024 which is after six years. It is further submitted while placing para 13 of the affidavit that the applicant and his wife have disowned the deceased and her husband for which they have given an affidavit and also got a publication published in the newspaper, annexure 5 being the said documents have been placed before the Court. It is further submitted while placing para 13 of the affidavit that the applicant and his wife have disowned the deceased and her husband for which they have given an affidavit and also got a publication published in the newspaper, annexure 5 being the said documents have been placed before the Court. Further while placing para 14 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant was living separately with his wife from his son after the year 2022. Further, while placing para 19 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is aged about 61 years and is suffering from old age diseases and as such he is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.12.2024. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the postmortem report of the deceased goes to show that he received a ligature mark and there are four other injuries on her body. It is submitted that the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation. It is submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him in the present case. There is allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment and assault of the deceased and she was also subjected to cruelty soon before her death. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was found to have received the following injuries as per postmortem report which was noted as antemortem injures: i) A ligature mark of six 19cm x 0.5cm horizontally placed on front of neck and lateral aspect of both side of neck which is 10.5cm below tragus of Rt. ear, 8cm below front of chin, 10cm below tragus of Lt. ear. ii) On cut section subcutaneous tissue underneath ligature mark ecchymosed. iii) Abraded contusion size 1.8cm x 1.5cm on left side of neck which is 8.5cm below from lower edge of left pinna. ear, 8cm below front of chin, 10cm below tragus of Lt. ear. ii) On cut section subcutaneous tissue underneath ligature mark ecchymosed. iii) Abraded contusion size 1.8cm x 1.5cm on left side of neck which is 8.5cm below from lower edge of left pinna. iv) Abraded contusion size 2cm x 1.5cm on Rt. side of neck which is 9cm below from lower edge of right pinna. v) Abrasion of size 0.5cm x 0.5cm present on left side back of neck 6cm below from left mastoid bone at 7o' clock position. vi) Abrasion of size 0.6cm x 0.5cm present on left side back of neck 2.5cm below from injury no.5. 10. The cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. The strangulation is such a condition in which suicide is not possible. There has to be persons present at the time of committing it. Looking to the cause of death and the nature of injures it is not a case of suicide. The applicant is named in the FIR and the role has been assigned. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 11. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.