Allahabad High Court
VISHNUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The bail application was rejected; the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, husband of a woman who died within 13 months of marriage, sought bail in a dowry death case (Criminal No. 376 of 2024) alleging that the death was a suicide and that the post‑mortem report was erroneous. The prosecution argued that the post‑mortem indicated strangulation, making it a homicidal death, and that the applicant failed to explain the circumstances. The court noted that at the bail stage it could not evaluate the substantive evidence and that the applicant had been in custody for over one and a half years with only three of thirty‑three witnesses examined. It held that the applicant’s claim of suicide appeared false and that the seriousness of the alleged dowry‑related homicide outweighed the length of incarceration. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused in a dowry death case where the post‑mortem suggests homicidal death.
- Whether the accused's claim that the death was a suicide, contrary to the post‑mortem report, affects the bail decision.
- Whether the duration of pre‑trial detention and limited witness examination justify granting bail.
- Whether the trial court can assess the credibility of evidence at the bail stage.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 80(2), 85
Subjects
- dowry death
- bail
- homicidal death
- suicide claim
- post‑mortem report
- Indian Penal Code
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13049 of 2026
Vishnu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 376 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal during
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is however husband
of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused
in the present matter. He further submits, however, post mortem report
suggests that deceased died due to strangulation but it is not a case of
homicidal death. He further submits, actually applicant was very poor and
therefore deceased committed suicide and it appears, autopsy surgeon
wrongly noted that it is a case of strangulation.
4. He further submits, even during trial when prosecution witnesses appeared
before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and from
their statements it reflects, it is not a case of dowry death as they did not
state that deceased was subjected to demand of dowry.
5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 03.08.2024 i.e. for last more than one and
half years and till date out of 33 witness only three could be examined,
therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits,
BAIL No. 13049 of 2026
2
applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within 13 months of
her marriage due to strangulation and there is also allegation of torture for
demand of dowry and as deceased died due to strangulation, therefore, it is a
case of homicidal death and applicant was husband of the deceased and he
failed to explain the homicidal death of his wife.
7. Learned AGA further submits, however, applicant made an averment that
actually it is a case of suicidal death but considering the post mortem report
of the deceased it reflects, the defence taken by the applicant in the bail
application prima facie appears to be false.
8. Learned AGA further submits, it appears, there are however some
contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to
torture of deceased for demand of dowry but at this stage this Court cannot
appreciate the evidence recorded before the trial court and trial court can
only appreciate the evidence during trial.
9. Learned AGA further submits, however applicant is in jail for last one and
half years and till date out of 33 witnesses only three witnesses could be
examined but considering the nature of allegation and the facts of the case it
is not proper to release the applicant on bail merely on this ground. Learned
AGA further submits, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, applicant should not be released on bail and instant bail application
should be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. Applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within 13 months
of her marriage in her matrimonial home due to strangulation and there is
also allegation of torture for demand of dowry.
12. Further, as post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to
strangulation, therefore, prima facie it appears to be a case of homicidal
death.
13. Further, however, in paragraph-25 applicant made an averment that
actually it is a case of suicidal death and deceased committed suicide by
hanging but considering the post mortem report of the deceased prima facie
averment made in paragraph-25 of the affidavit appears to be false.
BAIL No. 13049 of 2026
3
14. Further, however, as per learned counsel for applicant during trial there
are contradictions in the statements of witnesses with regard to torture for
demand of dowry but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by
learned AGA that at the stage of bail this Court cannot appreciate the
evidence and only trial court during trial can appreciate the evidence of
prosecution witnesses.
15. Further, however, applicant is in jail for last more than one and half
years and out of 33 witnesses till date only three witnesses could be
examined but considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased
and his wife has been murdered in her matrimonial home and applicant not
only failed to explain her homicidal death but he even has taken a false
defence, in view of this Court merely on the basis of his incarceration it is
not proper to release him on bail.
16. Further, even in view of this Court there must be some balance between
period of incarceration suffered by an accused, allegation made against him
and punishment provided for the alleged offences.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is rejected.
19. 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.
20. However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than
one and half years trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously
as possible strictly in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties if there is no legal impediment.
April 20, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…