Allahabad High Court
VIKAS KUMARversusTHE STATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted to the accused at this stage.
Summary
Vikas Kumar, the husband of a woman who died by hanging, applied for bail in a case under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant argued that the dowry demand allegation was vague, that he had no prior criminal record, and that the deceased had committed suicide, making the charges false. The State contended that the deceased had suffered cruelty for non‑payment of dowry and that her unnatural death within seven years of marriage indicated culpability. The Court examined the material suggesting dowry‑related cruelty and the circumstances of death and concluded that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial, citing the Apex Court’s observations in Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 85, 80(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act given the alleged dowry‑related cruelty and the deceased's suicide.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 80(2), 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- dowry prohibition
- suicide
- cruelty
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- trial acceleration
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11265 of 2026
Vikas Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunwar Akhilendra Singh, Shyam
Kishore Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, Om
Prakash
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Shyam Kishore
Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash along with
Sri Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, counsel for the first informant, Sri Roshan
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.456 of 2024, under
Sections 85, 80(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District-Kanpur Nagar.
3. Contention of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of
the deceased. He has been falsely implicated. The deceased herself
committed suicide by hanging. It is further submitted that on the basis of
general and vague allegation, the applicant has been falsely implicated,
though in the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses, no specific time
and date has been mentioned for demand of dowry, therefore, the allegation
of demand of dowry is absolutely false and the applicant has been falsely
implicated. Applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since
01.01.2025. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation/trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the first informant
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died
BAIL No. 11265 of 2026
2
under unnatural circumstance within seven years of her marriage and there
was consistence statement of first informant and other family members of
the deceased that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on
bail.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account that the deceased died under unnatural circumstance
within seven years of her marriage and there is material showing that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry, therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the
applicant on bail, at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
7. However, considering the observations made by the Apex Court in the
case of Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Writ Petition (Crl)
No.99 of 2026 that if a person is in jail, then it is the duty of the trial court
and the prosecution to conclude the trial as early as possible, therefore, the
trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 18, 2026
CS/-
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…