Allahabad High Court
SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sachin, accused in a case under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 85, 80(2) of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging the death of his wife was a suicide. The applicant argued that the deceased was short‑tempered, that the post‑mortem showed a hanging with an intact hyoid bone, and that the informant (the deceased's father) testified that the family was innocent. The State opposed bail, maintaining that the death occurred under suspicious circumstances and that dowry‑related torture was alleged. The Court noted the lack of any criminal history, the informant’s corroborative statements, and the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstances of the deceased's death establish a prima facie case of dowry death warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the informant's testimony and post‑mortem report create sufficient doubt to justify bail.
- Whether the applicant's lack of criminal history and the presumption of innocence merit bail during trial.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- suicide
- presumption of innocence
- Indian Penal Code
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15349 of 2026
Sachin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukesh Joshi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Today power has been filed by Miss. Amrita Singh, Advocate, on
behalf of informant which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Miss. Amrita
Singh, learned counsel for informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra
Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.162 of 2025, under Sections
115(2), 352, 351(3), 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Asmoli, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is
husband of deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been
made accused in the present matter.
5. He further argued, actually deceased was short tempered lady and
she did not want to perform her matrimonial duties and, therefore,
very often her dispute arose with the applicant and his family
members and only due to her nature she committed suicide by
hanging.
6. He next submits, post mortem report of the deceased also
suggests that she died due to hanging and her hyoid bone was found
intact and apart from the ligature mark she did not sustain any other
injury and, therefore, paima facie, even from the post mortem report it
appears to be a case of suicidal death.
7. He further argued, even during trial in cross examination informant
of the case i.e. father of deceased categorically stated that applicant
and his family members are innocent and they never tortured the
BAIL No. 15349 of 2026
2
deceased in any manner and deceased committed suicide only due
to the reason that she was short tempered lady and on the instigation
of villagers he lodged F.I.R. of the present case and the statement of
the informant recorded before the trial court has been annexed along
with the supplementary affidavit dated 29.04.2026 filed in support of
instant bail application. He next submits, therefore, even the
statement of the informant recorded before the trial court also
indicates it is not a case of dowry death.
8. He further argued, applicant is not having any criminal history and
in the present matter he is in jail since 14.06.2025 i.e. for last more
than 10-1/2 months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for informant opposed
prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on fact advanced
by learned counsel for applicant including the fact that during trial
father of deceased i.e. informant of the case in his cross examination
did not support the prosecution case and categorically stated that
applicant and his family members are innocent and deceased
committed suicide due to her nature and on the instigation of
villagers, he lodged F.I.R. of the present case.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
11. However, applicant is husband of deceased and his wife died
within two years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in
her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for
demand of a Bolero four-wheeler and some other expensive items
but it reflects, during trial father of deceased i.e. informant of the case
in his cross examination did not support the prosecution case and
categorically stated that deceased was short tempered lady and due
to her nature she committed suicide and after her death on the
instigation of villager he lodged F.I.R. of the present case. It reflects
informant in his statement also stated that applicant and his family
members are innocent.
12. Further, even post mortem report suggests deceased died due to
hanging and apart from the ligature mark she did not sustain any
other injury and even her hyoid bone was found intact and
considering the post mortem report and statement of the informant
recorded before the trial court, prima facie, it appears to be a suicidal
case. Further, considering the statement of the informant recorded
before the trial court even reason of suicide disclosed by applicant in
the instant bail application also cannot be ruled out at this stage.
13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 14.06.2025 i.e. for last 10-1/2
BAIL No. 15349 of 2026
3
months.
14. Further law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed
to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for
preventive or punitive purpose.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on
bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant -Sachin 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.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
18. 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.
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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 6, 2026
Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…