Allahabad High Court
MUKESH DUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
Since no prima facie evidence of the applicant’s involvement in the alleged murder was found and the possibility of suicide could not be ruled out, the applicant was entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mukesh Dubey, accused of murder under IPC sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) and 61(2)Ka BNS. The applicant claimed the death of his wife was a suicide by aluminum phosphide, citing an inconclusive post‑mortem and a delayed, unreliable statement from his daughter. The State argued the daughter’s statement implicated the applicant, but acknowledged the post‑mortem could not definitively establish homicide. The Court found no prima facie evidence linking the applicant to the alleged murder and noted the possibility of suicide could not be ruled out. Considering the applicant’s clean criminal record and nine‑month pre‑trial detention, the Court granted bail with conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established prima facie evidence of the applicant’s involvement in the alleged murder to deny bail.
- Whether the possibility of suicide, as suggested by the post‑mortem and viscera report, affects the bail decision.
- Whether the delayed recording of the daughter’s statement impacts its reliability and the case against the applicant.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial custody justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 115(2), 3(5), 61(2)Ka BNS
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- suicide
- prima facie evidence
- pre‑trial detention
- Indian Penal Code
- aluminum phosphide poisoning
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10446 of 2026
Mukesh Dubey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Girish Singh, Padmaker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sharad Kumar Srivastava, G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri A.K.
Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA for the State-
respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 373 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5),
61(2)Ka BNS, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, during
pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is husband of
the deceased and as per allegation he alongwith other accused committed her
murder but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.
4. He further submitted that post mortem report suggests that cause of death
of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved and
now viscera report has been filed by the State through counter affidavit and
from its perusal it reflects, deceased died due to consumption of aluminum
phosphide and therefore, prima facie, it appears to be a case of suicidal
death.
5. He further submitted that actually deceased was having doubt that
applicant developed extra marital affair with some other lady and therefore,
very often dispute arose between husband and wife and due to this reason
she consumed some poisonous substance and died. He next submits,
immediately after the incident applicant took her to the hospital and this fact
BAIL No. 10446 of 2026
2
is evident from para 24 of the paper book but inspite of the best efforts she
could not survive and died and after her death informant cooked up a false
story and lodged FIR of the present case.
6. He further submitted that however during investigation when
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of daughter of the applicant and
deceased namely Navika Dubey then she stated against the applicant and
also stated that her mother after the incident informed that applicant
administered poison to her but her statement has been recorded after 52 days'
of the incident and she appears to be tutored witness. He next submits, even
it reflects, she could not herself witness the applicant while he was allegedly
administereing poisonous substance to the deceased.
7. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record which
prima facie, suggests that applicant committed the murder of his wife i.e.
deceased of the case.
8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history
and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2025 i.e. for last more than
9 months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the
deceased and from the statement of his daughter his complicity is apparent
but they could not dispute the fact that statement of this witness was
recorded after 52 days and even she did not state that before her applicant
administered poisonous substance to the deceased.
10. They also could not dispute the fact that from the post mortem report it
reflects, cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained and viscera
report of the deceased suggests that she died due to consumption of
aluminum phosphide and applicant in the instant bail application has taken a
defence that deceased was having doubt that he developed illicit relationship
with another lady and therefore, she consumed poisonous substance and
died.
11. They further could not dispute the fact that after the alleged incident
applicant had taken the deceased to the hospital where she was declared
dead.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
BAIL No. 10446 of 2026
3
case.
13. However applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he
committed murder of his wife alongwith others but her post mortem report
suggests that her cause of death could not be ascertained and her viscera was
preserved and from the viscera report it reflects, deceased died due to
consumption of aluminum phosphide.
14. Further, however, from the statement of the Navika Dubey, daughter of
the applicant and deceased it reflects, according to her applicant
administered poison to the deceased i.e. her mother and even her mother
disclosed this fact to her but statement of this witness was recorded after 52
days and even her statement does not appear to be convincing. It also
reflects, she herself could not witness that applicant administered poisonous
substance to the deceased.
15. Considering the over all facts and circumstances discussed above it
reflects, there is no prima facie evidence which can suggest that applicant
administered poisonous substance to the deceased and possibility of suicide
committed by deceased at this stage cannot be ruled out.
16. Further applicant in para-24 of the instant bail application also made an
averment that deceased was having doubt that applicant had extra marital
affair with one another lady and therefore, dispute very often arose between
applicant and deceased and due to this reason she consumed poisonous
substance and died. Considering the facts of the case the defence taken by
the applicant at this stage cannot be completely brushed aside.
17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the
present matter since 16.12.2025 i.e. for last more than 9 months.
18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
20. Let the applicant-Mukesh Dubey, 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-
BAIL No. 10446 of 2026
4
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
22. 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.
September 21, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…