Allahabad High Court
RAJATversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the serious nature of the charges and the victim’s dying declaration warranted the applicant’s continued custody.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Rajat, who is charged under IPC sections 103(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 333 and 140(3) BNS for the death of his sister‑in‑law. The applicant claimed the incident was an accident that occurred during a family dispute, asserting that he had no motive to murder and that the deceased had inadvertently stepped in front of his vehicle. The State opposed bail, relying on a dying declaration recorded under Section 180 of the CrPC in which the deceased alleged that the applicant ran over her twice, causing fatal injuries. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the existence of a dying declaration, and the lack of any mitigating factor. Finding that the nature of the accusation and the victim’s statement indicated a prima facie case of culpable homicide, the court declined to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to an accused facing serious charges of homicide and related offences?
- Does the dying declaration under Section 180 of the CrPC create a sufficient ground to deny bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 115, 140, 333, 351, 352
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- dying declaration
- culpable homicide
- vehicular homicide
- Section 180 CrPC
- serious offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10526 of 2025
Rajat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhilasha Tiwari, Awaish Khan, Sadrul
Islam Jafri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Kuamr Yadav, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned
counsel for the informant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.124 of 2024, under Sections- 103(1),
115(2), 351(2), 352, 333, 140(3) BNS, Police Station- Rehar, District-
Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the
prosecution story deceased was sister in law of the applicant and there
was matrimonial dispute between the applicant's sister and her husband
and on the date of incident, the applicant's sister called upon her father as
well as applicant and thereafter, applicant as well as his father along with
3-4 persons came to the house of her sister and after brief scuffling,
applicant along with other co-accused persons had forcibly abducted the
brother of the deceased and when the deceased tried to stop them, then the
present applicant, who was driving a Swift car hit the deceased by the car
and, thereafter, suddenly, applied break due to which deceased fall down
then the applicant again ran over the car upon the deceased due to which,
she suffered serious injuries and she was admitted in the hospital. A
hematoma was found in his brain because of that accident and
subsequently, deceased succumbed to injuries. It is further submitted that
BAIL No. 10526 of 2025
2
it was a case of accident and when the applicant tried to drive away in the
car along with his sister and brother in law then the deceased suddenly,
came in front of his vehicle and suffered injuries due to accident,
therefore, there was no motive on the part of the applicant to murder the
deceased. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the
present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since
14.11.2024. It is further submitted that till date PW-1 has been recorded
during the trial and in case, applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse
the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that deceased before her death recorded her statement
under Section 180 BNSS and clearly stated that it is not the once but
twice the applicant ran over the car over her, which resulted into serious
injuries to the deceased, who subsequently died despite treatment in the
hospital. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Considering the aforesaid submission and taking into account that the
nature of allegation and statement of deceased before her death making
specific allegation of repeated ran the vehicle over her, this court is not
inclined to release the applicant on bail.
6. Therefore, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
April 27, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…