Allahabad High Court
SHANI PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of proven guilt and given the applicant's clean record, bail must be granted.
Summary
The applicant, Shani Prajapati, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 163 of 2024) under Sections 85 and 80 of the BNS Act and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the death of his wife, who allegedly committed suicide by hanging. The applicant’s counsel highlighted his lack of prior criminal record, his long pre‑trial detention since September 2024, and the post‑mortem report indicating death by hanging, while acknowledging his alcoholism as a factor in marital disputes. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The court noted that the possibility of suicide could not be ruled out, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and there is no justification for preventive detention. Consequently, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 85, 80 of the BNS Act and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act pending trial.
- Whether the presumption of innocence and lack of criminal history warrant bail despite allegations of homicide.
- Whether the possibility of suicide, as indicated by the post‑mortem report, affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- presumption of innocence
- suicide
- homicide
- alcoholism
- criminal procedure
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11851 of 2026
Shani Prajapati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Srivastava Iii, Pratik Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80 of BNS and 3/4
D.P. Act, Police Station Airport, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the
trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is
husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegations he has been
made accused in the present matter.
4. He further submitted that actually applicant developed bad habit of
consuming liquor and therefore, very often serious dispute arose between
husband and wife and in spite of insistence of his wife, he could not quit his
bad habit of consuming liquor and therefore, within three years of her
marriage deceased committed suicide by hanging.
5. He further submitted that even post mortem report of the deceased
suggests that she died due to hanging.
6. He further submitted that the fact that husband is alcoholic is even evident
from the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation which have
been annexed alongwith the instant bail application.
7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is
in jail in the present matter since 4.9.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half
BAIL No. 11851 of 2026
2
years.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
10. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within
three years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in her
matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for demand of Rs.
Three lacs but post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to
hanging, therefore, possibility of suicidal death at this stage cannot be ruled
out and considering the statements of independent witnesses defence taken
by applicant that as applicant was alcoholic, therefore, deceased committed
suicide also cannot be ruled out at this stage.
11. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the
present matter since 4.9.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.
12. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to
be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive
or preventive purpose.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant-Shani Prajapati, 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:-
(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.
BAIL No. 11851 of 2026
3
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
16. 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.
17. 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.
April 20, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…