Mahendra Singh Katiyar Alias Majile v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31298 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant-Mahendra Singh Katiyar @ Majile, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 58 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 108 B.N.S., Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶4The first information report of the present matter was lodged on

20.02.2025, under Sections 85, 103(1), 115(2), 352 B.N.S. by Amit Katiyar against the applicant and 04 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his sister was solemnized in the year 2009 with Mahendra Katiyar (the applicant). After marriage the accused persons were demanding Rs. 5 lakhs as extra dowry and used to assault and torture the deceased. Mohini Katiyar was assaulted many times by the accused persons. On the day of incident the accused persons set her on fire and murdered her. While being in a burnt condition she was taken to the hospital on 14.02.2025 at about 08:20 am where she died. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mahendra Singh Katiyar Alias Majile .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the postmortem examination of Smt. Mohini goes to show that she received external burn injuries on her body and the cause of death was opined as shock due to antemortem burn injury. It is submitted that there is no external injury seen on her body. It is submitted that during investigation the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Divya Katiyat (13 years) daughter of the deceased and Urjit Katiyar (09 years) son of the deceased who stated that the applicant and the deceased used to fight for encashment of a FD for purchase of tractor which was being refused by the deceased and on the day of incident there was also a fight for the same and the applicant had slapped his wife after which she went inside the room and then she ignited herself, the applicant then broke the door and saved her. It is submitted that thus the same goes to show that the applicant is not involved in the present matter. It is submitted that during investigation Section 103 (1) B.N.S. was converted into Section 108 B.N.S. but the other sections remain same. It is submitted that the present case is a case of suicide. It is submitted that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicant has no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the first information report of the present case has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 08 days. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 32 of the affidavit and is in jail since 22.04.2025.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the the applicant is the husband of the deceased and there are allegations against him.

¶7After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged after an explained delay of 08 days. Initially the case was under Section 103 (1) B.N.S. and other sections but during investigation the same was converted into under Section 108 B.N.S. The deceased was found to have received burn injuries. She died due to burn injuries. There is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicant has no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence.

¶8Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9Let the applicant-Mahendra Singh Katiyar @ Majile, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and

(3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶10The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶11The bail application is allowed.

¶12Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 26, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad