Allahabad High Court
DEVESH ALIAS ARVESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail and dismissed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Devesh (alias Arvesh), who is charged under IPC sections 498‑A, 302, 201 and 34 for the murder of his wife. The body was discovered in his house after being allegedly moved there by a person named Dahla, who could not be traced during investigation. The applicant argued that there were no eye‑witnesses, the charge‑sheet had been filed, and he was a law‑abiding citizen, thus deserving bail. The State opposed, highlighting the post‑mortem findings of throttling injuries, the applicant’s alleged habitual drunkenness, and his failure to explain the circumstances of death, invoking Section 109 of the Bail, etc. Act. The Court noted investigation lapses but held, following State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, that such lapses do not merit bail when other evidence is sufficient, and consequently rejected the bail plea.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 109 of the Bail, etc. Act, 1976 in view of the seriousness of the offences and the evidence on record.
- Whether alleged negligence in the investigation can be a ground for granting bail.
- Whether the presence of the deceased's body in the applicant's house and the lack of an eye‑witness preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bail, etc. Act, 1976 — s. 109
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34, 498-A
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Section 109 BSA
- investigation negligence
- post‑mortem evidence
- prima facie case
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16999 of 2025
Devesh Alias Arvesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hitesh Pachori
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Yadav, G.A., Vimal
Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. No one appeared behalf of the first informant despite service of notice by
the counsel for the applicant through Whatsapp. Screenshot is available on
record.
2. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhupendra Pal
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 0073 of 2024, under Section
498-A, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Bah, District Agra.
4. This matter was heard on 10.09.2026. On that date, this Court directed the
trial court to submit explanation regarding the delay between 19.02.2026 to
18.04.2026 in conclusion of the trial.
5. In compliance of the order dated 10.09.2026, the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Agra has submitted reply that P.W.-1
Dharmveer has been examined and N.B.W. has been issued against P.W.-2
Kishan and the next date fixed is 12.10.2026. Though, this explanation has
been submitted by the trial judge who received file on 18.04.2026, but till
date the trial judge who was presiding over the court from 19.02.2026 to
18.04.2026 has not submitted any explanation. The court is satisfied with the
progress of trial.
6. In compliance of the order dated 10.09.2026, the I.O. of this case Sri
BAIL No. 16999 of 2025
2
Yogendra Singh, who filed the charged-sheet, is present before this Court
and he apprised the Court that during investigation Dahla could not be traced
out and for that reason statement of Dahla could not be recorded. He also
could not submit any reply regarding non-examination of any other
independent witness of the concerned villager as well as the explanation why
he has prepared the site plan of the agricultural field, though the body of the
deceased was found in the house of the applicant; and no one has seen the
body of the deceased in the agriculture field. It is also apprised by him that
the statement of sister, nephew and brother of the applicant has been
recorded as a witness, though they were accused, which was subsequently
rectified.
7. The aforesaid facts show prima facie negligence on part of the
Investigation Officer, therefore, the Commissioner of Police, Agra is
directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action.
8. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no eye-witness of the
incident in question and the applicant immediately found the dead-body of
the deceased in his house, which was transported by Dahla from agriculture
field to his house, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated. The
applicant is not concerned with the murder of the deceased and some other
person might have committed her murder, therefore, the applicant is entitled
to be released on bail. 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 26.05.2024. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that Dahla could not be traced out during the pendency of
investigation against the applicant, but investigation was pending against the
co-accused persons. During investigation of co-accused persons, statement
of Dahla and other villagers were recorded by the subsequent I.O.; and
Dahla admitted in his statement that on the request of the applicant he came
to his house to admit the deceased to the hospital. However, the deceased
had already died. It is further submitted that the deceased was recovered
from the house of the applicant and no one has seen the incident in the
BAIL No. 16999 of 2025
3
agriculture field. It is further submitted that the first informant in his
statement stated, on the basis of information received from some unknown
villagers, that the applicant being the husband of the deceased could not
explain the circumstances under which deceased died in the house. It is
further submitted that the post-mortem report of the deceased shows that she
was having multiple injuries on her person and the cause of death is ante-
mortem injury due to throttling; the statement of the witnesses show that the
applicant was habitual drunker and he used to quarrel with his wife. It is also
submitted that the applicant could not explain the cause of death of the
deceased, therefore, in view of Section 109 BSA, the applicant is not entitled
to be released on bail.
10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties; taking into account the fact that the body
of the deceased was found in the house of the applicant; it is admitted by the
applicant that it is the Dahla who transported the body of the deceased from
agriculture field to his house, but Dahla never came forward to explain the
aforesaid version of the applicant; also taking into account that the deceased
was having multiple injuries on her person and the cause of death is
throttling; the applicant, being the husband of the deceased and he was in
possession of the house, from where the dead-body of the deceased was
found, is the person who has to explain the reason for death of the deceased
in view of Section 109 BSA, therefore, this Court is not inclined to release
the applicant on bail.
11. This Court is also of the view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, reported in AIR 2000 SC 185 has held
that merely because of some fault in the investigation, it cannot be a ground
for acquittal of an accused, if other evidence is sufficient.
12. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
13. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the
Commissioner of Police, Agra for compliance of paragraph no.7.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 29, 2026
CS/-
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…