Sanju @ Sanjiv Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home ...

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Case Crime No. 102 of 202, under Sections 103(1), 352 BNS, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.02.2025, an FIR under Section 103(1) and 352 BNS (old Sections 302 and 504 IPC) has been lodged against the applicant alleging therein that due to old enmity, the applicant killed the wife of the informant by repeatedly hitting her with an axe and when she was taken to the hospital, the doctor declared her brought dead.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of four hours. It is further submitted that in the FIR itself, it has been mentioned that the neighbours had taken the injured wife of the informant to the hospital. It is also submitted that it is unbelievable that in front of the husband, anyone could hit his wife with several blows with an axe and there was no enmity with the wife of the informant. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 08.02.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have submitted that the informant himself is an eyewitness of the incident and the enmity with the applicant has not been denied or disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant, as he himself has argued that there was no enmity with the wife of the informant.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the informant in the FIR has stated that with the help of neighbours, he took his injured wife to the hospital. He has nowhere stated that the neighbours alone had taken his wife to the hospital. The injuries on the body of the deceased, as mentioned in the FIR, corroborate with the post-mortem report. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant that how it is possible that in front of the husband, the wife could be killed, is a matter to be considered during trial. The submission regarding unexplained delay of four hours in lodging the FIR is also not tenable in the eyes of law.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

8. Accordingly, the present bail application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

(Manish Kumar,J.)

May 7, 2026

DiVYa