Allahabad High Court
SADDAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, in view of the finding that the death was caused by smothering and the absence of any injury to the applicant, bail could not be granted.
Summary
The applicant, husband of a deceased woman, sought bail in a criminal case alleging smothering, invoking Sections 85, 80(2), 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. He claimed the death was accidental, stating his wife’s dupatta got caught in his motorcycle wheel, and that he himself sustained injuries consistent with a road accident. The State opposed bail, arguing the FIR named the applicant for smothering, that his injuries were not significant, and that he was attempting a false defence. The court examined the medical report, the cause of death (asphyxia due to smothering), and the lack of injury to the applicant, and concluded that bail was not appropriate. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction for the trial court to expedite the trial in line with Supreme Court precedents. The observations were limited to bail and do not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the applicable provisions of the BNS and D.P. Act given the nature of the alleged smothering offence.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged injuries and claim of an accidental death justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and the findings of asphyxia due to smothering preclude bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- smothering
- accidental death
- medical report
- trial pending
- court discretion
- Uttar Pradesh criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31079 of 2025
Saddam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mir Sayed, Subhash Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd. Shaafi, Shujauddin
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 75 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mir Sayed, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Shujauddin, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail
in Case Crime No. 587 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 103(1), 61(2) of
BNS and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Tanda, District -
Rampur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the
husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further
contended that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was carrying
his wife on his motorcycle, and her clothes (dupatta) inadvertently got
entangled in the rear wheel of the motorcycle, resulting in her strangulation.
On this basis, it is argued that the incident was purely accidental in nature
and the applicant has been falsely implicated.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant himself sustained
injuries in the said incident and was admitted to the hospital on 23.11.2024
at about 08:00 PM. As per the medical report, it is recorded that the
applicant had fallen from a motorcycle. The report indicates that the
applicant sustained five abrasions, which are consistent with injuries that
may occur in a road accident.
BAIL No. 31079 of 2025
2
6. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in
jail since 25.11.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall
cooperate with trial.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A.
have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the
applicant is named in the FIR. It is a case of smothering and the applicant
being her husband, is not entitled for bail. It is further argued that the
applicant did not sustain any significant injury, as is evident from the
medical report itself. It is contended that the applicant has attempted to
create a false defence by subsequently getting himself admitted to the
hospital, and therefore, no benefit can be extended to him on this ground.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the
fact that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a
result of smothering and also the fact that there being no injury observed on
the body of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on
bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs.
State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of
India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
March 18, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…