The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Zafeer Ahmad, has granted bail to a dowry death convict pending his appeal, observing that the legislature has not prescribed any provision for the imposition of a fine under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Granting relief to the appellant, the High Court noted that the Additional District and Sessions Judge had committed a “glaring error” by imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Section 304B IPC without statutory backing, and stayed the recovery of the said amount.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Laxmi Narayan, had preferred a criminal appeal along with a bail application against his conviction and sentencing passed in Sessions Trial No. 1384 of 2001, arising out of Case Crime No. 304 of 2000 registered at Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.
The trial court had convicted him under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC along with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Section 304B IPC, three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 6,000 under Section 498A IPC, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Seeking release during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved the bail application before the High Court.
Arguments Before the Court
Appearing for the appellant, counsels Nadeem Murtaza, Pallav Shukla, Rakesh Kumar Nayak, Shailendra Singh Rajawat, Shashank Tilhari, and Surya Prakash argued that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence on record and wrongly convicted the appellant. It was specifically urged that the trial court had imposed a fine to the tune of Rs. 20,000 under Section 304B IPC, despite the statute containing no provision for the imposition of a fine for an offence under the said section.
Counsel further highlighted that the appellant was on bail throughout the trial and had never misused the liberty granted to him. Drawing attention to the merits, counsel submitted that there was a dying declaration of the deceased wherein she categorically stated that she set herself on fire because one Kalawati, her maternal aunt (Bua), had scolded her. Counsel also pointed out that the appellant has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since March 28, 2025, and undertook that he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the early disposal of the appeal.
The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, though he could not dispute the factual submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
After considering the submissions of both sides and perusing the record, Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed that the appellant was on bail during trial and had not misused the liberty, making it a fit case to enlarge him on bail.
Taking stern judicial notice of the sentence of fine imposed under Section 304B IPC, the High Court remarked:
“I am surprised to see that the learned trial judge has imposed fine also on the accused persons under Section 304B I.P.C. The legislature has not prescribed the imposition of any fine for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The Court can award only such sentence as is prescribed by the statute and where the statute does not provide for imposition of a fine for a particular offence, the Court cannot impose a fine in addition to the sentence prescribed therein.”
Expressing disappointment over the trial court’s order, the High Court observed:
“It is unfortunate that such a glaring error has been committed by the Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge and the sentence in the aforesaid Sessions Trial has been passed by the concerned learned Trial Judge without duly considering the provisions of Section 304-B IPC.”
Decision of the Court
Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed that the appellant, Laxmi Narayan, be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The bail was granted subject to the following conditions:
- The total fine of Rs. 8,000 for the offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be deposited by the appellant within four weeks from the date of his release, while the fine imposed under Section 304B IPC shall remain stayed.
- The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
- The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would serve as a ground for cancellation of bail, and directed the trial court to transmit the submitted bail bonds forthwith. It was also noted that observations made in the order were confined only to the disposal of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.
In addition, the High Court directed its Senior Registrar to send a copy of the order within ten days, through the concerned District Judge, to Sri Rahul Mishra, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, for his future guidance. The main appeal was directed to be listed in due course.
Case Title: Laxmi Narayan Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2025
Bench: Justice Zafeer Ahmad
Date: August 21, 2026
