Allahabad High Court
Sameer @ Shahbuddin vs State Of U.P. on 10 September, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:160060
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34378 of 2024
Sameer @ Shahbuddin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Amit Kumar, Brij Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Sameer @ Shahbuddin, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 355 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Majhaula, District Muradabad.
4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 19010 of 2023 (Sameer @ Shahbuddin Vs. State of U.P.).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present matter, the trial has till date not started. While placing para 28 of the affidavit it is submitted that although 27 dates in the matter being fixed for recording evidence the witnesses did not turn up and the applicant is in jail without his fault. It is submitted that as such considering the delay in trial, the bail application of the applicant be allowed and he be released on bail. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 12.01.2023.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023. It is submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that there is no fresh and new ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant and as such the present bail application be rejected.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 06.07.2023. The same reads as under:
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sameer @ Shahbuddin, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 355 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Majhaula, District Moradabad.
4. The First Information of the present case was lodged on 14.05.2022 by Saleem the father of the deceased against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Saima was solemnized with Sameer @ Sahabuddin the present applicant on 19.07.2020 during corona period, the accused persons used to torture and taunt his daughter for dowry. They used to beat his daughter. His daughter has made a complaint to the S.S.P., Moradabad on 16.02.2022 to the same. On 02.05.2022 he received an information that his daughter is unwell. He went to her house and found his daughter is dead. He then became disturbed and in the meantime, the accused persons cremated her. He then came to know that the accused persons were instrumental in the death of his daughter. The First Information Report has thus been lodged.
5. The dead body of the deceased was buried which was subsequently exhumed and then postmortem examination was conducted on 18.05.2022. The body was found to be in an advanced decomposition state and the cause of death could not be ascertained and hence viscera was preserved.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that cremation of the deceased was done in the presence of the first informant but he did not make any complaint whatsoever on that time. It is argued that the First Information Report has been lodged after delay of about 12 days from the date of the incident. It is argued that deceased remained unwell as she was a patient of tuberculosis and was under treatment at the government hospital. Annexure 3 being some prescription of the year 2021 has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. It is argued that the deceased died a natural death and then after the consent of her family members and in their presence, she was cremated. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.01.2023.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. It is further argued that in so far as the illness of the deceased is concerned, there is no document to show that she was ill and was under treatment at the time of incident. It is argued that the medical prescription and the documents as are being relied upon pertain to July 2021 and December 2021. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was unwell and was under treatment at the time of incident. It is argued that the husband of the deceased and his family members surreptitiously cremated the deceased. The first informant has explained the reason for not lodging the First Information Report earlier as he became disturbed seeing his daughter dead. It is further argued that even in the First Information Report it is mentioned that the deceased had made a complaint to the S.S.P., Moradabad regarding the demand of dowry and beating her by the accused persons. It is argued that as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. She died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of incident the deceased was unwell. The medical reports are of around 6 months before which show that she was treated for tuberculosis. The applicant and family members cremated the deceased after which the FIR was registered and the dead body was exhumed and postmortem examination was done. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."
8. The trial in the present matter is at the stage of recording of evidence. The prosecution is expected to produce the witnesses without any delay for recording of their testimony before the trial court. No fresh and new ground for bail is made out. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.
9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.) September 10, 2025 M. ARIF