Allahabad High Court

GOVIND SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail as prima facie evidence indicates his involvement in the alleged dowry death.

Summary

The applicant, Govind Singh, sought bail in a dowry‑death case where his wife was found dead by throttling. The FIR originally alleged offences under sections 80(2), 85 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the charge‑sheet was later filed under sections 85, 103(1) BNS and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant claimed he was not present at the scene, having gone to his maternal aunt’s house, and alleged that the investigating officer had not properly examined his alibi. The State opposed bail, arguing that the post‑mortem report and the nature of the alleged dowry‑related motive created a prima facie case against him. The court examined the material on record and concluded that, in the absence of evidence disproving the prosecution’s case, the applicant could not be deemed innocent at this stage. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to the accused in a dowry‑death case where prima facie evidence suggests involvement
Whether the investigating officer’s failure to substantiate the applicant’s alibi warrants bail
Whether the charge‑sheet filed under sections 85, 103(1) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act is sufficient to deny bail

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 85
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

dowry death
bail
prima facie
post mortem
alibi
investigation
criminal law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34723 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praful Dev Shukla, Sriprakash Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Sriprakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay
Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2026, under Sections 85, 103(1) BNS and 3/4
D.P. Act, Police Station Jamalpur, District Mirzapur, during pendency of
the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is husband of
the deceased and initially FIR of the present case was lodged for offences
punishable under sections 80(2), 85 BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act but after
investigation charge sheet has been filed under sections 85, 103(1) BNS and
3/4 D.P. Act.

4. He further submitted that however applicant is husband of the deceased
and as per allegation he committed the murder of his wife alongwith others
but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that however post mortem report suggests that
deceased died due to throttling but at the time of incident, applicant was not
present at spot and he had gone to the house of his Mausi.

6. He further submitted that however applicant moved an application that he
was not present at spot but on his application no action was taken and
Investigating Officer did not investigate the matter properly and in routine
manner submitted the charge sheet against the applicant.
BAIL No. 34723 of 2026
2

7. He further submitted that applicant is innocent and he did not involve in
commission of the alleged crime.

8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history
and he is in jail in the present matter since 8.2.2026 i.e. for last almost 8
months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that
applicant is husband of the deceased and post mortem report suggests that
deceased died due to throttling in her matrimonial home and therefore, it
reflects, deceased has been murdered in her matrimonial home and therefore,
prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent specially considering
the fact that there is no evidence on record which can suggest that at the time
of the alleged incident applicant was not present at his home.

10. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts of the case,
instant bail application of the applicant may be dismissed.

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

12. Applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry he alongwith his family members committed
her murder and even post mortem report suggests that she died due to
throttling therefore, allegations levelled against the applicant are quite
serious.

13. Further, however learned counsel for the applicant argued that at the time
of incident applicant was not present in his home and he went to the house of
his Mausi and during investigation Investigating Officer did not properly
investigate the matter and submitted charge sheet in routine manner but in
absence of any supportive evidence merely on the basis of bald defence
taken by the applicant, entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.
Considering the material available on record, prima facie, it cannot be said
that applicant is innocent.

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

15. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
BAIL No. 34723 of 2026
3

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.

September 29, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…