Allahabad High Court

DEEPAKversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The Court held that the applicant’s lack of criminal history, the hostile witnesses, and the insufficient evidentiary basis for conviction justified the grant of bail.

Summary

The applicant, Deepak, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 292 of 2024) involving alleged dowry demand and homicide under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution argued that the FIR was filed within six hours and that the deceased died by hanging inside the applicant’s house, indicating seriousness of the offence. The defence contended that the applicant was falsely implicated, the FIR was delayed, the accused had no prior criminal record, and key prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The Court examined the nature of the offence, the evidence, the hostile witnesses, and the applicant’s clean record, and concluded that the circumstances did not preclude bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act given the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Whether the alleged delay in filing the FIR or the location of the death within the accused’s house justifies denial of bail.
Whether the hostile nature of prosecution witnesses and the absence of a criminal record warrant bail.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 115(2), 80(2), 85
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
dowry prohibition
FIR delay
hostile witnesses
criminal trial
Section 80
Section 85
Section 115
Section 3
Section 4
asphyxia
hanging

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12408 of 2026

Deepak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Janardan Prasad Tripathi, Mahendra
Singh, Srijana Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.74 out of 243)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant and the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. are taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.292 of 2024, under Sections 80(2),
85, 115(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Junawai, District Sambhal,
during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.7.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.23238 of 2025, and the following order was
passed:-

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2024, under Sections
80(2), 85, 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station - Junawai, District - Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.
BAIL No. 12408 of 2026
2

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is
delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The cause of death of deceased person has been found to be
asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

5. Learned counsel has also relied upon the statement of the doctor who
has stated that the applicant had tried to save her life as he took her to
him but she had already expired, as such, the allegations made against
the applicant are false. It is further stated that there is no criminal history
of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.11.2024. In
case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail.

6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that the FIR is not delayed rather it was
instituted within a period of six hours. The deceased had expired within
the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant is not
entitled for bail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence
on record, pending trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment
and considering the fact that the deceased had expired within the
precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that there was
demand of one motorcycle as dowry, I do not find it a fit case to release
the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs.
State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union
of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the
facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail
BAIL No. 12408 of 2026
3

application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits
of the case during trial."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that two witnesses, PW-1 &
PW-2, have been examined during trial and they have not supported the
prosecution story, rather they have been cross-examined by the public
prosecutor after declaring them hostile during cross-examination. As such,
there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case.
There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in
jail since 28.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that the witnesses have turned hostile, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Deepak, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…