Allahabad High Court
HARIOM RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court denied bail to the applicant, holding that the presumption of dowry death under Section 118 precludes his release.
Summary
The applicant, Hariom Rajbhar, husband of a woman who died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 291 of 2025) alleging dowry harassment. He argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that the charge sheet had been filed, negating the need for custodial interrogation. The State opposed bail, citing witness statements that the applicant continuously harassed his wife for dowry, and highlighted the presumption of dowry death under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court examined the evidence, the statutory presumption, and the seriousness of the allegations. Concluding that the presumption of dowry death applied, the Court declined to grant bail, finding the applicant not entitled to liberty pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused husband in a dowry death case.
- Whether the presumption of dowry death under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, applies to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — s. 118
- Delhi Police Act — s. 238, 3/4, 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- presumption of dowry death
- Section 118
- criminal procedure
- dowry harassment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29331 of 2026
Hariom Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Kumar Dixit, Venu Gopal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Avinash Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Roshan Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 291 of 2025, under
Sections 85, 80(2), 238 & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District
Kushinagar.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is
husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated though there is
no material to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty
for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the
deceased died under unnatural circumstances. Charge sheet has been filed by
the police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The
applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since
20.07.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died within 7 years of her
marriage under unnatural circumstances. He further submitted that
statements of witnesses recorded during investigation show that the
applicant had been continuously harassing the deceased for non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking
BAIL No. 29331 of 2026
2
into account the fact that the applicant is husband of the deceased, who died
under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and also
cremated in absence of her parents and evidence collected during
investigation shows that she was subjected to cruelty with regard to demand
of dowry prior to her death, therefore, in view of presumption of dowry
death under Section 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, this Court
is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
6. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
September 23, 2026
A.Kr.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…