Allahabad High Court
SAMEER USMANIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court held that the bail application must be rejected as a prima facie case of homicide exists and the procedural lapse does not justify release.
Summary
The applicant, Sameer Usmani, was charged under Sections 85, 80(2) of the CrPC, Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and Section 302 IPC for allegedly murdering his wife after demanding a Mercedes car. The applicant contended that the death was accidental, citing the post‑mortem, vehicle examination, eyewitness statements and his own hospital discharge summaries, and argued that his grounds of arrest were not communicated, violating Article 22. The State and the informant countered that the injuries (throttling, possible poisoning) and the applicant’s conduct (leaving the scene, no injuries to himself) indicated a prima facie case of homicide. The Court examined the post‑mortem findings, the lack of evidence of accidental throttling, and the procedural issue, noting that the Supreme Court has held that non‑communication of arrest grounds, absent prejudice, does not by itself merit bail. Concluding that a serious prima facie case existed and the procedural lapse was not fatal, the Court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- The applicability of bail under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the CrPC in a murder case with a prima facie case of homicide.
- Whether the alleged procedural violation of Article 22(1) (non‑communication of grounds of arrest) warrants bail.
- Whether the death can be characterized as accidental based on post‑mortem, vehicle, and eyewitness evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 80(2), 85
- Constitution of India — s. Article 22(1)
- Delhi Police Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- accidental death
- Article 22
- prima facie case
- procedural lapse
- homicide
- dowry demand
- post‑mortem
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46052 of 2025
Reserved on 13.02.2026
Delivered on 18.03.2026
Sameer Usmani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Swayamanand Sisodiya, Swetashwa
Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aushim Luthra, G.A., Irshad Husain
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Swayamanand Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish
Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aushim Luthra, learned
counsel for informant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Biharigarh, District Saharanpur during
pendency of the trial.
Brief facts of the case:-
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 18.02.2025 against applicant, his
parents and younger brother. According to the FIR marriage of the applicant
was solemnized with the daughter of informant on 23.10.2021 and though in
marriage informant according to his capacity gave sufficient dowry but
applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by
him and after marriage they made demand of a Mercidies four wheeler and
due to above demand they tortured his daughter.
BAIL No. 46052 of 2025
2
4. FIR further states, on 17.02.2025 applicant had taken the daughter of the
informant from her paternal house under the pretext to provide medicine to
her and after returning from Dehradoon he due to non fulfillment of demand
of Mercidies car committed her murder and tried to show the murder as
accident.
Arguments advanced on behalf of applicant:-
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submits,
applicant is though husband of the deceased but on the basis of false
allegations he has been made accused in the present matter along with his
parents and younger brother.
6. He further submits, admittedly the dead body of the wife of the applicant
was found in Creta four wheeler which was driven by the applicant and from
perusal of entire material available on record including statements of
witnesses recorded during investigation and photographs of Creta Car prima
facie present case appears to be a case of accidental death.
7. He further submits, actually when applicant was returning along with his
wife from Creta car then on the way his car met with an accident and
unfortunately in the accident his wife sustained injuries and died and after
her death on the basis of false allegations informant next day lodged FIR of
the present case.
8. He further submits, immediately after the above accident dated
17.02.2025 applicant informed the informant and on his information he
himself on 17.02.2025 moved an application to District Magistrate
Saharanpur which has been annexed at page-52 of the paper-book and from
its perusal it reflects, in this application he himself stated that on 17.02.2025
at about 01.00 PM in the road accident his daughter died but next day i.e.
18.02.2025 he lodged FIR of the present case. He next submits, even from
the inquest report which has been annexed at page-60 of the paper-book it
reflects, deceased died in accident. He further submits, therefore, these facts
clearly suggest that actually FIR of the present case has been lodged as an
afterthought.
9. He further submits, however, post mortem report suggests that deceased
sustained as many as five injuries including two lacerated wounds on right
side of head and one ligature mark on the neck and doctor also opined that
BAIL No. 46052 of 2025
3
deceased died as a result of ante mortem throttling but even in case of
accidental death a person can be died due to throttling. He next submits, a
research document in this regard has been filed as Annexure-5 to the
affidavit.
10. He further submits, however, post mortem report also suggests according
to autopsy surgeon it may also be a case of suspected poisoning but till date
viscera report of the deceased is not on record, therefore, at this stage it
cannot be said that deceased also consumed some poisonous substance.
11. He next submits, even vehicle examination of Creta car was conducted
and its detailed report has also been annexed along with instant bail
application and from the report which also includes the photographs of the
damage vehicle it is apparent that it is a case of accidental death.
12. He further submits, at the time of accident applicant was also along with
deceased in the car but luckily he did not receive any injury but he was in
shock due to the accident and was remained in hospital for two days and this
fact is evident from his discharge summary which has also been annexed
along with instant bail application.
13. He further submits, even from the statements of two alleged eye
witnesses Faisal Ansari and his wife Smt. Nazia Ansari recorded during
investigation which have been annexed along with instant bail application it
reflects, it is a case of accidental death.
14. He further submits, apart from the merit of the case, from the arrest
memo of the applicant which has been annexed along with instant bail
application it reflects, at the time of his arrest ground of arrest has not been
communicated to him, therefore, there is also gross violation of Article 22 of
the Constitution of India and this violation clearly indicates that detention of
the applicant in the present matter is illegal and on this ground also applicant
is entitled to be released on bail. He placed reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court passed in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and
another (2025) 5 SCC 799.
15. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail since 22.02.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.
16. He further submits, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, applicant should be enlarged on bail.
BAIL No. 46052 of 2025
4
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State and informant:-
17. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant is
husband of the deceased and his wife died within three and half years of her
marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also specific allegation
of torture in connection to demand of Mercidies car. They further submit,
applicant is very shrewd person and firstly he committed the murder of his
wife and thereafter tried to give colour the murder as accident.
18. They further submitted that it is quite surprising that although applicant
was driving the vehicle and his wife i.e. deceased was sitting just adjacent to
him in front seat but only she sustained injuries and died and applicant did
not sustain even a single scratch and this fact clearly suggests that actually it
is not a case of accidental death.
19. They further submit, from the statements of witnesses recorded during
investigation including two eye witnesses Faisal Ansari and his wife it
reflect, they did not witness the real incident and when they arrived at spot
then at that time crowed had already gathered there and they found that a
lady was lying in injured condition. They further submit, even from their
statements it reflect, according to them at that time wife of the applicant was
alive but applicant did even not try to provide any medical treatment to her
and he after taking lift from another car went away from the spot and this
fact clearly suggests that applicant is not an innocent person.
20. They further submit, even from the post mortem report it reflects,
deceased died due to throttling with suspected case of poisoning, therefore,
prima facie it appears to be a case of homicidal death and not the case of
accidental death.
21. They further submit, from the literature annexed by learned counsel for
applicant in the instant bail application though it reflects, throttling may be
result of an accident but only in rare cases and considering the overall facts
and circumstances of the case including seats of injuries sustained by the
deceased and statements of witnesses and conduct of the applicant at this
stage it cannot be said that it is a rare case of accidental death rather
circumstances indicate that prima facie it appears to be a case of homicidal
death.
BAIL No. 46052 of 2025
5
22. They further submit, therefore considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, applicant should not be released on bail.
Analysis:-
23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
24. Applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within three and
half years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also
allegation of torture in connection to demand of Mercidies four wheeler.
25. Further, from the post mortem report it reflects, deceased died due to
throttling and as per autopsy surgeon it may be a case of suspected
poisoning. Post mortem report also suggests that deceased sustained two
lacerated wounds on right side of head and one ligature mark on her neck.
However, from the literature which has been annexed along with instant bail
application it reflects, death due to throttling may be caused even due to
accident but from the literature it further reflects, such death can be only in
rare cases.
26. Further, post mortem report also suggests that trachea of the deceased
was found fractured and even as per above literature if some cloths or seat
belt of the vehicle tighten then death may be caused due to throttling in an
accident but there is no such evidence on record which can suggests that any
cloths or seat belt was found or seen around the neck of the deceased
therefore considering the fact that only in rare cases death due to throttling
may be an accidental death at this stage it cannot be said that it is a case of
accidental death.
27. Further, even from the statements of doctors namely Dr. Shivendra Singh
and Dr. Gurmeet Kaur recorded during investigation it reflect, according to
them it is case of homicidal death and even there is possibility that before
death some poisonous substance was administered to the deceased.
28. Further, even from the statements of two alleged eye witnesses it reflect,
applicant did not even try to save the life of his wife who was alive and after
leaving alone his wife in the car he after taking lift from another car went
away from the spot and this shows the conduct of the applicant.
29. Further, even from the post mortem and statements of autopsy surgeon
BAIL No. 46052 of 2025
6
possibility of suspected poisoning at this stage cannot be ruled out and
however viscera report has not been produced either by applicant or
prosecution but merely on this ground in view of this Court it is not proper
to observe that it appears to be a case of accidental death.
30. Further, even as per defence at the time of alleged incident applicant was
driving the vehicle but surprisingly he did not sustain any visible injury and
even his entire scan was found normal.
31. Further, however, from the discharge summary of the applicant it
reflects, he was admitted in the hospital on 17.02.2025 and was discharged
on 18.02.2025 i.e. next day but considering the fact that he did not sustain
any injury merely on this ground it cannot be held at this stage that due to
accidental shock he had to admit in the hospital.
32. Further, along with instant bail application applicant filed discharge
summary of two hospitals. First discharge summary is of Hospital Power
Life Care Hospital and according to it he was admitted in the hospital on
17.02.2025 and was discharged on 18.02.2025 at 02.30 PM and from the
discharge summary of Max Health Care it reflects, he was admitted on
18.02.2025 at 16.24 hours and was discharge on 20.02.2025 at 13.01 hours
and therefore it appears, after discharge from Power Life Care Hospital he
admitted in Max Health Care and remained admitted in this hospital for
almost two days but surprisingly from the reports it could not be reflected
his condition was such critical for which he had to admit twice in the
hospital and this fact again prima facie cast doubt on the story of accident
narrated by the applicant.
33. Further, even from the record it reflects, when applicant was arrested
then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one heavy iron piece was
recovered which according to prosecution used by him in causing injuries to
the deceased on head.
34. Further, however, it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged on
18.02.2025 and a day before i.e. 17.02.2025 informant i.e. father of the
deceased moved an application to the District Magistrate concerned that his
daughter has died in road accident but it appears, this application was moved
by him for the purpose to conduct her post mortem in the night and at that
time it appears, he was not aware that it is not a case of accidental death,
therefore, on the basis of application dated 17.02.2025 moved by the
BAIL No. 46052 of 2025
7
informant no benefit can be extended to the applicant.
35. Further, however, from the arrest memo of the applicant it reflects, at the
time of arrest ground of arrest has not been communicated to him but even in
case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned
counsel for applicant it has been held that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the
accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not
conveyed in writing and similarly in Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh and others 2025 INSC 768 it has been observed that
when arrest is made pursuant to a warrant reading out of warrant amounts to
sufficient compliance.
36.The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc.
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 in para 20.1.7 also observed as:-
"In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the
respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented
from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and
informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to
establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the
absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect
and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court
treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under
Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal
and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially
different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with
the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent
prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail."
37. In the present matter applicant has been detained in jail for last more
than a year and he is in jail pursuant to the judicial order/warrant, therefore,
in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the cases of
K.U.Reddy (supra) and Sri Darshan Etc. (supra) Article 22(1) has been
satisfied and it cannot be said that applicant has been illegally detained in the
instant matter.
38. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Sri Darshan (supra) even after
discussing the case of Vihaan Kumar and K.U. Reddy (supra) criticized the
High Court because High Court heavily relied upon the alleged procedural
lapses released the accused on bail considering the non communication of
ground of his arrest overlooking the gravity of offence under Section 302
BAIL No. 46052 of 2025
8
IPC and existence of prima facie case.
39. Therefore, from the case of Sri Darshan Etc (supra) it reflects, in view of
the Apex Court while considering the bail on violation of Article 22(1) of
Constitution of India it is also the duty of the Court to consider the gravity of
the alleged offence and existence of prima facie case.
40. In case at hand, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, allegations made against the applicant appear to be quite serious
and even prima facie case against him is made out, therefore, even in view of
the observation made by Apex Court in case of Sri Darshan Etc. (supra)
applicant should not be released on bail merely on the ground that ground of
arrest in writing has not been communicated to him at the time of his arrest
specially considering the fact that subsequent to his arrest he has been
detained by judicial orders through warrants and it cannot be said that till
date he could not become aware about ground of his arrest.
41. Further, even applicant could not demonstrate that due to non
communication of grounds of his arrest at the time of arrest caused any
prejudice to him, therefore, in view of the Apex Court in case of Sri Darshan
Etc. (supra) he should not be released on bail considering the fact that at the
time of his arrest grounds of arrest have not been communicated to him.
42. Further, however, applicant is in jail for last more than one year but
considering the nature of allegation leveled against him and conduct of the
applicant this Court is of the view that merely on this ground he should not
be released on bail.
43. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
44. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is rejected.
45. 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
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…