Allahabad High Court
BHURAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
In the absence of definitive medical evidence linking the accused to the miscarriage, the accused is entitled to bail.
Summary
The accused Bhura applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 104 of 2026) alleging matrimonial atrocities, forced miscarriage, and assault. He claimed false implication, stating that the FIR was lodged by the victim's father and that there is no definitive medical evidence linking him to the miscarriage. The State argued that he supplied and administered medicine that caused the miscarriage, justifying denial of bail. The court examined the submissions and noted the lack of a specific medical report establishing the cause of miscarriage, finding the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention. Consequently, the court granted bail, ordering a personal bond and two sureties, while directing the accused to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a matrimonial atrocity case where concrete medical evidence of the alleged crime is absent
- Whether the alleged act of providing medicine for miscarriage constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail
- How the Supreme Court precedents in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re apply to the bail determination
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 85, 89
Subjects
- bail
- matrimonial atrocities
- forced miscarriage
- false implication
- criminal trial
- personal bond
- sureties
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35077 of 2026
Bhura
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pavan Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Kaushik, G.A., Krishna Shankar
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for accused applicant,
Sri Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A.
for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Bhura to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 104 of 2026, under
Sections 115(2), 85, 89 BNS, P.S.- Meerapur, District- Muzaffar Nagar,
during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant and co-accused have been falsely implicated in FIR dated
17.06.2026 lodged by the father of victim, who was married to the son of
accused applicant on 09.06.2021. The allegation is matrimonial atrocities
and forced miscarriage and assault. It is further contended that four person
including the accused applicant and the husband of the victim have been
made accused in the present case. The specific role attributed on the
accused applicant is of providing medicine for miscarriage in the garb of
pain killer. The accused applicant has no criminal history. Further submits
that the supplementary medico legal report at page- 36 of the bail
application clearly shows that there is no definite opinion about
miscarriage. Investigation is continuing and the applicant is co-operating
in the investigation. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since
13.08.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. for State opposed
BAIL No. 35077 of 2026
2
the bail application and submit that the specific role is assigned to the
accused applicant. It is the applicant, who brought the medicine for
miscarriage and administered it to the victim, which led to the
miscarriage. Hence, the bail application be rejected.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the matrimonial discord between the parties and there is no
specific medical report to show the miscarriage and except the statement
of victim, there is nothing on record to show the way matrimonial
atrocities has been caused, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released
on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
October 1, 2026
Sharad/-
Digitally signed by :-
SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…