Allahabad High Court
MANISHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as the Court found the death to fall within the ambit of dowry death under Section 80(2) IPC and the applicant failed to explain the abnormal death.
Summary
The applicant, husband of a woman who died by hanging within two and a half years of marriage, sought bail in a case filed under Section 80(2) of the Indian Penal Code (dowry death) along with Sections 85, 115(2) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant argued that the death was a suicide and thus should be dealt with under Section 108 IPC, not as dowry death. The State contended that the death, though by hanging, was an abnormal death occurring within seven years of marriage and involved alleged dowry demands, thereby attracting Section 80(2). The Court held that suicide does not preclude the application of the dowry death provision and that the applicant had not satisfactorily explained the abnormal death. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the Court noting that the decision was limited to bail and not the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the death of the wife, though by hanging, qualifies as an abnormal death under Section 80(2) IPC (dowry death).
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for the alleged dowry death offence.
- Whether the applicant's explanation of the death as suicide is sufficient to negate liability under Section 80(2) IPC.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- abnormal death
- suicide
- Section 80(2) IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12995 of 2026
Manish
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Pravesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Kunwar Tejadra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 497 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2)
BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri
during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is husband
of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused
in the present matter. He further submits, as per post mortem deceased died
due to hanging and even her dead body was recovered after broken the door,
therefore, prima facie it appear to be a case of suicidal death but in spite of
that applicant has been made accused in the present matter for offence
punishable under Section 80(2) BNS though prima facie it appears to be a
case of Section 108 BNS.
4. He further submits, actually deceased was short tampered lady and only
due to this reason she committed suicide by hanging and after her death only
being her husband applicant has also been made accused in the present
matter along with others on the basis of false allegation of demand of golden
chain and Rs.1 lakh.
5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 15.12.2025.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant
BAIL No. 12995 of 2026
2
is husband of the deceased and his wife died within two and half years of her
marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and there
is also allegation of torture for demand of golden chain and Rs. 1 lakh.
7. Learned AGA further submits, however deceased died due to hanging but
even suicidal death is an abnormal death and applicant could not properly
explain the abnormal death of his wife. Learned AGA further submits, the
reason of suicide though disclosed by the applicant is paragraph-16 of the
affidavit but averment made in this paragraph appears to be vague and
merely on this averment it cannot be said that applicant has explained the
abnormal death of his wife.
8. Learned AGA further submits, even in the present matter applicant is in
jail only since 15.12.2025, therefore, considering the over all facts of the
case, applicant should not be released on bail and instant bail application
should be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
10. Applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within two and
half years of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal
circumstances and there is also allegation of torture for demand of Rs. 1 lakh
and golden chain.
11. Further, however, post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to
hanging, therefore, possibility of suicide committed by her at this stage
cannot be ruled out but in considered view of this Court even suicidal death
is an abnormal death which also attracts the provisions of Section 80(2) BNS
i.e. dowry death and being husband it was the duty of the applicant to
explain the abnormal death of his wife who died in his home within two and
half years of her marriage but applicant failed to discharge his
responsibilities and averment made in this regard prima facie appears to be
vague and general in nature.
12. Further, however, learned counsel for applicant vehemently submitted
that as deceased committed suicide, therefore, provisions of Section 108
BNS are applicable in the present matter but the argument advanced by
learned counsel for applicant is misconceived.
13. The law is settled that if wife died under abnormal circumstances even
BAIL No. 12995 of 2026
3
due to hanging within seven years of her marriage and there is also
allegation of torture with regard to demand of dowry then provisions of
dowry death will be applicable.
14. Further, even in the present matter applicant is in jail only for last four
months and minimum punishment for offence under Section 80(2) BNS is
seven years.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.
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
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…