# Raghvendra Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 607
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7768 of 2024
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghvendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-52900
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 304B & 328 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
Bail - In FIR, there was demand of
additional dowry from deceased person by
applicant
along
with
other
family
members, forcibly administered her some
poisonous
material
in
night
of
04/05.06.2023 at about 1:33 a.m., she
informed said fact to her father, who
rushed to house of in-laws of his daughter
and took her to Hospital, froth was coming
up from her mouth, it was smelling
pungent and during treatment she
expired. (Para 4, 5)

Contention by applicant, FIR was delayed
by about ten days, no explanation given
by prosecution - Cause of death could not
be ascertained, case of suicide as victim
consumed
aluminium
phosphide
as
common pesticide used in house - During
inquest
proceedings,
informant
not
whispered about demand of dowry and
St.d she expired under mysterious
circumstances - Further argued that
she had close relationship with Devar
of her elder sister , talked to him in
late hours of night, confirmed by CDR -
During investigation, mobile numbers
of Devar not supplied to Investigating
Officer deliberately so that WhatsApp
chats are not retrieved. (Para 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 15)
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held, conversations between them are
admitted and cast doubt on case, defence
has
to
put
its
case
on
basis
of
preponderance and probabilities only -
There was presumption u/s 113B, Indian
Evidence Act which may be raised in case
but prior to it, duty of prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
(Para 31)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Raghvendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
607
20. In the present case, while
considering the case in view of Sections
107 and 306 IPC, I find that there is no
evidence in the case of alleged abetment of
suicide because there is no active act shown
on the part of the applicants in any manner
so that the deceased was compelled to
commit suicide. It is apparent on the face of
record that the loan was sanctioned in the
name of the deceased, who could not repay
the same, then how the applicants being
brothers, could have been held responsible
for abetment in commission of suicide by
the deceased. There is no evidence or any
adverse material between the applicants
and the deceased, which could establish
that applicants were responsible to repay
the loan amount which was advanced in the
name of the deceased. The question of
mens rea on the part of the accused in such
cases would be examined with reference to
the actual acts and deeds of the accused,
but in the present case, no evidence is
available to establish that applicants were
having
mens
rea
in
abetment
of
commission
of
suicide.
Therefore,
continuance
of
the
present
criminal
proceedings against the applicants is
nothing but an abuse of process of law.

21. Application is accordingly
allowed and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.56450 of 2016, State Vs.
Sharad Kumar and another, arising out of
Case Crime No.135 of 2016, under Section
306 IPC, Police Station Maheshganj,
District Pratapgarh pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh against the
applicants, are hereby quashed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 607
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7768 of 2024

Raghvendra Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Dharmendra Singh, Sri Kunwar Bhaskar
Parihar, Ms. Neeja Srivastava, Sri Surya Bhan
Singh, Sri Veerendra Singh, Sri Vikas Sharma,
Sri V.P. Srivastava (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Abhilash Singh, Sri Ashutosh Yadav, G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 304B & 328 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
Bail - In FIR, there was demand of
additional dowry from deceased person by
applicant
along
with
other
family
members, forcibly administered her some
poisonous
material
in
night
of
04/05.06.2023 at about 1:33 a.m., she
informed said fact to her father, who
rushed to house of in-laws of his daughter
and took her to Hospital, froth was coming
up from her mouth, it was smelling
pungent and during treatment she
expired. (Para 4, 5)

Contention by applicant, FIR was delayed
by about ten days, no explanation given
by prosecution - Cause of death could not
be ascertained, case of suicide as victim
consumed
aluminium
phosphide
as
common pesticide used in house - During
inquest
proceedings,
informant
not
whispered about demand of dowry and
St.d she expired under mysterious
circumstances - Further argued that
she had close relationship with Devar
of her elder sister , talked to him in
late hours of night, confirmed by CDR -
During investigation, mobile numbers
of Devar not supplied to Investigating
Officer deliberately so that WhatsApp
chats are not retrieved. (Para 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 15)
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held, conversations between them are
admitted and cast doubt on case, defence
has
to
put
its
case
on
basis
of
preponderance and probabilities only -
There was presumption u/s 113B, Indian
Evidence Act which may be raised in case
but prior to it, duty of prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
(Para 31)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Niranjan Singh & anr. Vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote & ors., AIR 1980 SC 785

2. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & ors., 2022 INSC 690

3. Manish Sisodia Vs Directorate of Enforcement
2024 INSC 595

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

[1] List has been revised.

[2] Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.
Neeja Srivastava and Sri Dharmendra
Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

[3] Applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No. 415 of 2023, under Sections
498A, 304B, 328 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
the D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali,
District Fatehpur, during the pendency of
trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

[4] The marriage of the daughter of
the informant was solemnized with the
applicant as per Hindu rites on 22.02.2023
and enough pleasantries and gifts were
exchanged in it. It is alleged that the applicant
along with other family members is stated to
have subjected his daughter to cruelty for
demand of a Fortuner car as an additional
dowry thereby had forcibly administered her
some poisonous material in the night of
04/05.06.2023 at about 1:33 a.m. whereby
she informed the said fact to her father, who
rushed to the house of the in-laws of his
daughter and took her to Sadar Hospital,
Fatehpur whereby froth was coming up from
her mouth and it was smelling pungent.

[5] As such, the doctor had
conducted the procedure of gastric lavage and
referred her to Kanpur seeing her deteriorated
condition. On way to Kanpur, daughter of the
informant is stated to have expired.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT :

[6] The applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case and he has
nothing to do with the said offence.

[7] The FIR is delayed by about ten
days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused.

[8] The cause of death could not be
ascertained as such the viscera was preserved
and during the forensic analysis, aluminium
phosphide chemical was found as such the
cause of death was stated to be aluminium
phosphide only.

[9] It is a clear cut case of suicide
as the victim had consumed aluminium
phosphide which is a common pesticide
used in the house and she had consumed it
herself.

[10] The inquest proceedings of
the deceased person was conducted the
1 All. Raghvendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
609
same day i.e. on 05.06.2023 and the
informant had moved an application before
the Investigating Officer for the same
whereby he has not whispered a single
word about the demand of dowry and he
has simply stated that his daughter had
expired under mysterious circumstances, as
such her post mortem may be conducted.
The informant is panch witness no.1 in the
inquest proceedings.

[11] It is true that the deceased had
expired within a span of about four months
of her marriage but the deceased was
having close relationship with the younger
brother-in-law (Devar) of her elder sister
and she used to talk to him even in the late
hours of the night.

[12] The said fact stands fortified
from the C.D.R. details which categorically
indicates that the deceased immediately
before her marriage and after her marriage
used to talk to him during the night.

[13] The mobile of the deceased
was 8795779578 and that of the brother-inlaw (devar) of her elder sister was
7068224351. The relevant dates and times
of her talks in detail are being highlighted
as follows :-

Sr
no.
Date
Time Duration
1.
19.02.2023 1: 53
: 28
hrs.
2305
seconds
2.
27.02.2023 4
:
37:
25
hrs.
155
seconds
3.
27.02.2023 4
:
40:
13
hrs.
2057
seconds
4.
27.02.2023 5
:17:
20
hrs.
2216
seconds
5.
14.03.2023 1
:
24 :
49
hrs.
10794
seconds
6.
14.03.2023 4
:
26 :
41
hrs.
6624
seconds

[14] As such, it is clear cut case of
suicide as she did not want to marry the
applicant, rather she wanted to marry the
brother-in-law of her elder sister.

[15] It has come up during
investigation that the mobile numbers of
the brother-in-law of the sister of deceased
has not been supplied to the Investigating
Officer deliberately so that the WhatsApp
chats are not retrieved whatsoever.

[16] The C.D.Rs. have been filed
in the supplementary affidavit itself.

[17] Several other submissions
have been made on behalf of the applicant
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against him. The circumstances
which, as per counsel, led to the false
implication of the applicant have also been
touched upon at length.

[18] There is no criminal history of
the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 22.09.2023. The applicant is
ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
INFORMANT :
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[19] The bail application has been
opposed on the ground that the Field Unit
was called to the place of occurrence and
they had retrieved the mobile phones of the
deceased as well as her husband the same
day, as such the said details could have
been taken up by the Investigating Officer
by retrieving the mobile of the deceased
from the said Field Unit Team.

[20] There are no WhatsApp chats
between the two. In the modern era, it is but
common for one and all to communicate with
each other on WhatsApp and it would have
been open and shut case if those WhatsApp
chats had been retrieved.

[21] The said WhatsApp chats have
deliberately
been
concealed
by
the
Investigating Officer in collusion with
the applicant.

[22] The statement of brother-in-law
of the elder sister of the deceased was
recorded and he has categorically stated that
the mobile of the sister of the deceased was
not working, as such she used to take his
mobile phone and talk with her sister which
is but natural, as such the applicant is not
entitled for bail.

[23] In the light of presumption
under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence
Act, the onus lies on the applicant to rebut the
said fact as the deceased had expired within a
period of four months of her marriage after
forcibly administering her poison within the
precincts of the house of the applicant.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
STATE :

[24] The bail application has been
opposed on the ground that the deceased
had expired within seven years of her
marriage and there was demand of a
Fortuner car as an additional dowry from
the deceased person, although he has not
disputed the fact narrated in compliance
affidavit which states that the mobile
phones could not be obtained during
investigation and as such, the conversation
details
could
not be
retrieved. The
conversations between the deceased and the
brother-in-law (Devar) of the elder sister of
the deceased are admitted.

CONCLUSION:

[25] In light of the judgement of
the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan
Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this
Court has avoided detailed examination of
the evidence and elaborate documentation
of the merits of the case as no party should
have the impression that his case has been
prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of
case is needed but it is not the same as an
exhaustive exploration of the merits in the
order itself.

[26] The well-known principle of
"Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven
Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as
a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

[27] A person's right to life and
liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away
simply because the person is accused of
committing an offence until the guilt is
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states
that no one's life or personal liberty may be
taken
away
unless
the
procedure
established by law is followed, and the
procedure must be just and reasonable. The
said principle has been recapitulated by the
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil
1 All. Raghvendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
611
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

[28] Reiterating the aforesaid
view the Supreme Court in the case of
Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again
emphasised that the very well-settled
principle of law that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment is not to be
forgotten. It is high time that the Courts
should recognize the principle that "bail
is a rule and jail is an exception".

[29] Learned AGA could not
bring
forth
any
exceptional
circumstances which
would warrant
denial of bail to the applicant.

[30] It is settled principle of law
that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial. No
material particulars or circumstances
suggestive of the applicant fleeing from
justice or thwarting the course of justice
or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating
offences
or
intimidating
witnesses and the like have been shown
by learned AGA.

[31] The said conversations cast
doubt on the case but the defence is not
supposed to prove its case beyond
reasonable period, it has to put its case
on the basis of preponderance and
probabilities only. It is true that there is
presumption under section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act which may be
raised in the case but prior to it, it is the
utmost duty of the prosecution to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt.

[32] Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties,
and taking into evidence and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.

[33]

Let
the
applicant-
Raghvendra
Singh
Alias
Prince
involved in aforementioned case crime
number be released on bail on furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to following
conditions.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper
with evidence.
(ii) 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.

[34] In case of breach of any of
the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail. Identity,
status and residence proof of the
applicant and sureties be verified by the
court concerned before the bonds are
accepted.

[35] It is made clear that
observations made in granting bail to the
applicant shall not in any way affect the
learned trial Judge in forming his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 1 ILRA 612
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2001

Raj Deo & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
U.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Anil Kumar Singh, Vijai Shankar Tripathi

A. Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
161 & 162(2) - Admissibility of Statement to
Police- Under Section 162(2) CrPC, any
statement falling under Clause (1) of
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is
admissible, even if recorded under Section
161 CrPC. A statement by a person, who
later
dies,
regarding
the
cause
or
circumstances of his death, is relevant and
may be treated as a dying declaration. Such
a statement, if voluntarily and truthfully
made by a person in a fit mental state, is
admissible
even
without
medical
certification. Requirement of certification is
a rule of caution and not mandatory. In the
present
case
statement
of
the
injured/deceased was recorded by the
Investigating Officer while he was admitted
in the hospital. In his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he categorically
stated that the accused persons had
assaulted him with 'lathi', and the appellant
Ram Vishal was carrying a 'kulhari' and had
assaulted him with its blunt side. After his
death, the said statement-being related to
the cause of his death-is admissible in
evidence by virtue of Section 32 of the
Indian Evidence Act (Para 21, 22)
B. Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 147, 148 & 149
- Common Object, Common Intention -
Most important ingredient of unlawful
assembly is common object. Common
object of the persons composing that
assembly is to do any act or acts stated in
clauses
"First",
"Second",
"Third",
"Fourth" and "Fifth" of that section. In
order to fasten vicarious responsibility on
any member of an unlawful assembly the
prosecution must prove that the act
constituting an offence was done in
prosecution of the common object of that
assembly or the act done is such as the
members of that assembly knew to be
likely to be committed in prosecution of
the common object of that assembly.
What is important in each case is to find
out if the offence was committed to
accomplish the common object of the
assembly or was one which the members
knew to be likely to be committed. There
must be a nexus between the common
object and the offence committed. If an
offence is committed by a member of the
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object, any member of the
unlawful assembly who was present at the
time of commission of offence and who
shared
the
common
object
of
that
assembly
would
be
liable
for
the
commission of that offence even if no
overt act was committed by him. Active
participation is not a necessary condition
under Section 149 IPC; knowledge of the
common object suffices. (Para 37)

C. Criminal Law - Murder - Deceased,
returning home after purchasing a tractor
part, was ambushed by the accused hiding
near the roadside. He was pulled off his
bicycle and assaulted with lathi-danda and
kulhari; Kulhari was used by appellant
Ram Vishal from its blunt side. Witnesses
rushed to the spot and took the injured to
the hospital, where he later succumbed to
his injuries. He sustained 21 injuries,
including a fractured skull, and death
occurred due to their cumulative effect.
Formation of unlawful assembly by the
accused persons was well-established.
Though it is not necessary for every