Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Mahesh Chandra Pathak - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7858 of 2025
Decided on : 21-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 439 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for alleged murder and dowry harassment - FIR alleges deceased was tortured and ultimately murdered by applicant and others due to dowry demands - Postmortem report indicates cause of death as asphyxia from strangulation, with evidence of violence. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 10)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court considers the nature of allegations, evidence, and the applicant's role in the crime. The presence of specific injuries and the nature of death indicate a strong case against the applicant. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, who was allegedly tortured for dowry and found dead under suspicious circumstances. The applicant claims to have disowned the deceased and has no prior criminal history. (Paras 6, 7)
Findings of Court:
The court finds significant evidence against the applicant, including a detailed postmortem report indicating strangulation and the nature of the injuries, leading to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to bail. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The primary issue addressed is whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the injuries and the cause of death, along with the applicant's direct involvement as alleged in the FIR, do not warrant bail. The court emphasized the gravity of the charges and the evidence against the applicant. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Bail application rejected.
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. 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
The court denied bail based on serious allegations of murder and dowry harassment, supported by evidence of strangulation and violence against the deceased.
Hints at the grave implications of dowry-related murders and the judicial emphasis on denying bail in such cases.
The severity of the offence and the accused's capability of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses are crucial factors in deciding the grant of bail in cases of dowry death.
The court emphasized the necessity of a proximate nexus between dowry-related harassment and the death of the deceased for invoking Section 304B IPC.
The court emphasized that granting bail in dowry death cases undermines public confidence in justice and violates the legislative intent behind IPC sections pertaining to dowry-related offenses.
Bail cannot be denied based solely on allegations without substantial evidence; the presumption of innocence prevails.
The timing and specificity of allegations, completion of investigation, and framing of charges are crucial factors in considering bail applications in cases involving dowry demands and harassment.
The court emphasized the victim's right to justice over the accused's right to bail, confirming that evidence presented established prima facie grounds for dowry harassment leading to suicide.
The presumption of a 'dowry death' under Section 304B IPC should be tested in trial and is meant to act as a deterrent to the demand of dowry.
The court emphasized the necessity of a proximate link between alleged harassment for dowry and the subsequent death, rejecting bail on grounds of serious accusations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
