Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28369 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and Sri Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the informant.

¶2The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Deoriya Kalan, District Pilibhit during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 28.03.2025. The first information report was lodged on 03.04.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections 85, 80 B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 108 B.N.S. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera was preserved and was sent for chemical analysis. As per the FSL report, carbamate insecticide poison was found. It is next contended that as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, and Laxmi Das v. The State of West Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Pathak Pramod Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Bengal and others, Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017, dated 21.01.2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since

18.06.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly; as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained, the viscera was sent for chemical analysis and as per the FSL report, carbamate insecticide poison was found; as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Pramod Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 8, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 28369 of 2025 (Vivek Varma,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad