Allahabad High Court
ASHWANI KHARWARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage because material indicating cruelty and an unnatural death existed.
Summary
The applicant, Ashwani Kharwar, sought bail in a dowry‑death case (Crime No. 552 of 2024) filed under Sections 85 and 80 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that his wife died by suicide and that no specific dowry demand was recorded in the FIR or witness statements. The State opposed bail, highlighting that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and that family members had consistently alleged cruelty for non‑payment of dowry. The Court noted the material indicating cruelty and the unnatural death, and consequently declined to grant bail at this stage. While rejecting the bail application, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial, citing the Apex Court’s observations in Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a dowry‑death case under Sections 85, 80 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the allegations of dowry demand are sufficiently specific and credible to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the presence of material indicating cruelty and an unnatural death warrants refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 80, 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- cruelty
- unusual death
- B.N.S. Sections 85,80
- Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3,4
- false implication
- trial acceleration
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29044 of 2025
Ashwani Kharwar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Shukla, Surendra
Madhukar Godbole
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Manoj Kumar Rai, G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. No one appeared on behalf of the first informant despite service of notice
by the police.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.552 of 2024, under
Sections 85, 80 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-
Rasada, District Ballia.
4. Contention of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of
the deceased. He has been falsely implicated. The deceased herself
committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. It is further submitted
that on the basis of general and vague allegation, the applicant has been
falsely implicated, though in the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses,
no specific time and date has been mentioned for demand of dowry,
therefore, the allegation of demand of dowry is absolutely false and the
applicant has been falsely implicated. Applicant has no criminal history. He
is languishing in jail since 29.10.2024. In case the applicant is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the
investigation/trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the deceased died under unnatural circumstance within seven
years of her marriage and there was consistence statement of first informant
BAIL No. 29044 of 2025
2
and other family members of the deceased that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is
not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account that the deceased died under unnatural circumstance
within seven years of her marriage and there is material showing that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry, therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the
applicant on bail, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
8. However, considering the observations made by the Apex Court in the
case of Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Writ Petition (Crl)
No.99 of 2026 that if a person is in jail, then it is the duty of the trial court
and the prosecution to conclude the trial as early as possible, therefore, the
trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
October 1, 2026
CS/-
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…