Allahabad High Court
RANVEERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution has not established the requisite material to invoke the presumption of dowry death and, in view of prevailing bail jurisprudence, continued detention is unwarranted.
Summary
Ranveer, the father‑in‑law of a woman who died by suicide, was charged under Sections 80(2), 85 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that there was no material to establish the statutory presumption of dowry death, and that the charge‑sheet had already been filed, obviating the need for custodial interrogation. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual background. Relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v U.P., and the policy guidelines on bail, the Court held that the applicant’s continued detention was not justified, especially in view of overcrowded jails and lack of evidence of cruelty. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions and surety requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 304B IPC applies when there is no material showing cruelty before the death.
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the applicant.
- Whether the applicant’s right to liberty outweighs the State’s interest in detention, considering jail overcrowding and Supreme Court bail guidelines.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- presumption of dowry death
- suicide
- overcrowded jails
- Section 80(2) IPC
- Section 85 B.N.S.
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31650 of 2026
Ranveer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sharad Kumar
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Sharad Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant
and Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail in case crime no.102 of 2026, Under Sections-
80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act of Police
Station Awagarh, District-Etah, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant
is father-in-law of the deceased, who committed suicide by hanging
herself after a petty dispute over household issues. The applicant has
been falsely implicated merely being father-in-law of the deceased,
though there is no sufficient material against him to show that he
harassed the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry prior to
death. The applicant has been falsely implicated by making general
and vague allegations along with other family members. It is further
submitted that for invoking presumption of dowry death in case of
death under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of marriage,
there must be sufficient material to show that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty soon before the death, but there is no such
material. It is lastly submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the
police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.
The applicant has explained the criminal history of three cases in the
accompanying affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 27.05.2026.
In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
BAIL No. 31650 of 2026
2
would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused (father-in-
law) and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency
of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of
Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All
6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Ranveer, involved in the aforementioned crime
be released on bail, on his 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 not directly or indirectly make any 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 to
any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
BAIL No. 31650 of 2026
3
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as
well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
10. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis
of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the
official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned
counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order
to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System
(BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
through Etah Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison portal
and Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order
of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In
Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on
31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan @
Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.
September 30, 2026
S.C.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…