BABULAL PANIKAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19343 of 2025

Babulal Panika
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Garima Kumari Jaiswal, Narendra Nath
                                Tripathi, Pratibha Jaiswal, Rupa
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 53
                     HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State.

3. This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant
Babulal Panika. First bail application of the applicant being Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.11524 of 2025 (Babulal Panika vs. State of
U.P.) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a better application.

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by
the applicant- Babulal Panika, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in
connection with Case Crime No.81 of 2024, under Sections 82, 80(2) of
B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Kon,
District Sonbhadra.

5. The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on
4.7.2024 by Akhilesh Panika against the applicant and two other persons
alleging therein that his sister Kulwanti was married to the applicant
around three years back. His sister used to be tortured for cash money as
dowry. She was having a son and at present was also pregnant. On
3.7.2024, at about 8:30 A.M., he received a phone call from her husband
through which all the family members were called there, on which he
asked about the reason, to which the mother of Babulal stated that he
                                                         BAIL No. 19343 of 2025
                                2


should tell them that his sister has committed suicide. On it, he and his
family members reached her matrimonial house and found her body lying
on the floor. His sister used to be beaten and assaulted by the accused
who used to threaten her. On 2.7.2024, in the night she talked to her
mother and told her that the accused were torturing her and were stating
that they would murder her and throw her. It, thus, transpires that the
accused have murdered her. Report be lodged and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant
Babulal is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in
the case. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died,
which is suggestive from the post mortem examination report wherein a
ligature mark was found on her neck and cause of death was opined as
asphyxia due to hanging. It is submitted that dead body of the deceased
was found at a distance of about 200 meters away from the house, which
was hanging from a Jamun tree. It is further submitted that prior to the
present first information report, no complaint was made by the first
informant or any of his family members regarding any demand of dowry
or torture to the deceased by her husband or in-laws. It is further
submitted that the trial in the present matter has started, in which the first
informant, Akhilesh Panika, has been examined as PW1, whose statement
is annexed as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.1.2026 and on
perusal of the said statement, it would go to show that prior to the present
incident, no complaint whatsoever was made by him or any other person
regarding any such demand of dowry or torture. It is submitted that the
story of demand of dowry is a new story, for the first time, just to give the
case a different color. It is further submitted that as per the calendar,
which is annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the said supplementary affidavit,
the prosecution has shown eighteen witnesses to be examined in the trial
but as of now, only one witness has been examined and thus the trial
would take time.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted further while placing
reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karan
Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2015 INSC 133, (paragraph 8) and Charan
Singh @ Charanjit Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal
Number 447 of 2012, decided on 20th April, 2023 (paragraph Nos. 12
                                                       BAIL No. 19343 of 2025
                               3


and 23), that since there is no evidence of any cruelty or torture soon
before the death of the deceased, the applicant cannot be held guilty in the
present matter. It is submitted that the appellant has no criminal history,
as stated in paragraph No.6 of the supplementary affidavit. Further, while
placing reliance on paragraph No.24 of the affidavit in support of the bail
application, it is submitted that the deceased was not satisfied and was
continuously harassing the applicant for living separately, which was the
reason for her to commit suicide. It is submitted that, as such, the prayer
for bail be allowed. The applicant is in jail since 07.07.2024.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail
vehemently and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the
deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died within three years of
marriage in her matrimonial home and the death is unnatural. It is further
submitted that there is an allegation of demand of dowry by the accused,
including the applicant, from the deceased. It is further submitted that the
trial in the matter is going on, in which the first informant was examined
as PW-1, who has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted
that the reason for the deceased committing suicide, as pleaded in
paragraph No.24 of the affidavit, does not at all inspire confidence,
inasmuch as she was having a child of 4-5 years of age, which would go
to show that she had settled in her matrimonial house. It is further
submitted that the prayer for bail thus be rejected.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased.
There is an allegation of demand of dowry and torture by the applicant
and co-accused. The deceased died an unnatural death while living in her
matrimonial house and her dead body was found around 200 meters away
from the house, hanging on a tree. The reason as is being disclosed for her
committing suicide does not inspire confidence. The trial has started, in
which the first informant has been examined as PW-1. His testimony goes
to show that he has supported the prosecution case. Although it is pleaded
through Annexure-9 that co-accused Lakhpatia Devi has been granted bail
by order dated 2.1.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
34682 of 2024, (Lakhpatiya Devi vs. State of U.P.) and further co-
accused Kunj Bihari Panika has also been granted bail vide order dated
                                                                                          BAIL No. 19343 of 2025
                                                                   4


                                    31.1.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 33079 of 2025
                                    (Kunj Bihari Panika vs. State of UP) but their cases are distinguishable
                                    inasmuch as they are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased.
                                    No ground for bail is made out.

                                    10. Accordingly, present bail application stands rejected.



                                                                                             (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    February 13, 2026
                                    Kamarjahan




Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad