Allahabad High Court

MUSTKEEMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The applicant is not entitled to bail and the bail application is rejected.

Summary

The applicant, the father‑in‑law of a young bride who allegedly committed suicide within three months of marriage, sought bail in a dowry‑death case. The FIR and investigation statements allege torture for dowry, and the deceased’s dying declaration also implicates the applicant as one of the perpetrators. The applicant contended that the dying declaration does not mention dowry demands and that a prior 498A case against him was quashed. The State argued that the dying declaration and other evidence prima facie link the applicant to the abnormal death. After considering the allegations and the applicant’s two‑month incarceration, the court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the bail application without prejudice to the trial merits.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the dying declaration and FIR alleging his involvement in dowry‑related torture leading to the deceased's death.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 123, 351(3), 352, 61(2), 80(2), 85

Subjects

bail
dowry death
dying declaration
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
criminal procedure
allegations of torture

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15953 of 2026

Mustkeem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harishchandra Yadav, Mayank Chandra,
Surya Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Mayank Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2026, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 352,
351(3), 123, 61(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kundarki,
District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is father-in-law of the
deceased and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in
the present matter.

4. He further submits, however, in the FIR and in the statement of informant
recorded during investigation he made allegation of torture with regard to
demand of dowry but before death of the deceased her dying declaration was
recorded by learned Magistrate details of which have been noted by the
Investigating Officer in the case diary which has been annexed at page-77 of
the paper-book and from its perusal it reflects, however, she stated that
applicant also tortured her along with other family members but she did not
make any allegation of demand of dowry.

5. He further submits, it appears as deceased was on her dying bed and she
was not happy with the family members of her husband, therefore she also
disclosed the name of applicant in her dying declaration and merely on the
basis of her dying declaration at this stage it cannot be said that applicant
also involved in commission of her dowry death.
BAIL No. 15953 of 2026
2

6. He further submits, however, earlier also applicant has been made accused
in case of Section 498A IPC which was lodged by wife of brother-in-law of
applicant but that case has been quashed by this Court.

7. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
11.03.2026 i.e. for last two months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits,
deceased died within three months of her marriage in her matrimonial home
under abnormal circumstances and applicant is her father-in-law and in the
FIR and in the statement recorded during investigation informant
categorically stated that she was tortured for demand of dowry.

9. Learned AGA further submits, even from the dying declaration of the
deceased recorded by the Magistrate it reflects, applicant used to torture her.
Learned AGA next submits, even applicant is in jail only for last two
months. He next submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case
applicant should not be released on bail.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

11. It is a case in which a young bride within three months of her marriage
had to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance and in the FIR and
in the statement of informant recorded during investigation there is
allegation of torture for demand of dowry even against applicant, who is
father-in-law of the deceased.

12. Further, even from the record it reflects, before death of the deceased her
dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate and in the dying
declaration she categorically stated that applicant also used to torture her
along with other family members including her mother-in-law and therefore
she consumed Salfas and she did not want to live. However, in the dying
declaration deceased did not disclose the fact that she was also subjected to
cruelty for demand of dowry but this fact is evident from the FIR and even
from the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, therefore,
prima facie at this stage it cannot be said that applicant is not responsible for
abnormal death of his daughter-in-law.

13. Further, applicant is in jail only for last two months.
BAIL No. 15953 of 2026
3

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is rejected.

16. 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.

May 12, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…