Allahabad High Court
Naseem vs State Of U.P. on 13 October, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181913
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35302 of 2025
Naseem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Nasem, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Criminal Complaint No.1700091 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor.
4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 10.10.2016 by Absul Shakoor against the applicant and six other accused persons alleging therein that his daughter Gulishta was married with Naseem (the applicant) around 2 years back in which he had given gifts and dowry as per his status but the accused persons used to torture and assault his daughter for extra dowry. On 07.10.2016 she gave birth to a girl child. When he and other family members went to her matrimonial house on the occasion of giving birth to a child, she was found quite disturbed, on which she told them that the accused persons are planing to murder her and her husband does not like her and is demanding dowry. They then counseled the accused persons and came back. On 10.10.2016 at about 04:00p.m. the accused persons murdered his daughter as she gave birth to a girl child and then ran away from the house. A report be lodged and action be taken.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the matter was investigated and final report dated 31.10.2016 was submitted against which the informant filed a protest petition dated 15.4.2017 on which the court concerned directed further information in the matter after which again a final report was submitted against which again informant filed a protest petition dated 30.3.2018 in which vide order dated 18.6.2018 it was directed by the court concerned to be treated as complaint case. Subsequently the statements of the informant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses namely Zamila as P.W.-1, Rahmatulla as P.W.-2, Zakir as P.W.-3 and Dr. Prem Prakash as P.W.-5 was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as P.W.-4 no statement was recorded it appears that inadvertently numbering was marked wrongly before the court concerned. He further submitted that subsequently vide order dated 27.4.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, the applicant/Naseem, Khurshid and Khursida have been summoned for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. It is submitted that the deceased died a natural death after having complications during delivery. It is submitted that the doctor conducting post mortem examination found part of placenta attached to near wall of uterus and cause of death was opined as Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) which is a complication at the time of delivery. It is submitted that as such implication of the applicant is without any credible evidence. Further it is submitted that death of the deceased was thus due to natural cause and not due to any other reason. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-5 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.7.2025.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that after F.I.R. final report in the matter was submitted twice. Both times protest petitions were filed by the informant but finally the court concerned treated the protest petition as complaint and inquiry was conducted after which the applicant and two other accused were summoned by the concerned court. Cause of death appears to be due to complication of delivery which was opined as Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH).
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicant- Naseem, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.) October 13, 2025 Naresh