Allahabad High Court
MANOJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the prosecution had established a prima facie case involving serious dowry‑related offences and the risk of interference with the trial.
Summary
Manoj, the husband of a woman who died within five years of marriage, is charged under Sections 498A, 304B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has been in custody since December 2021 and has filed three bail applications, all of which were rejected. The court examined factors such as the seriousness of the offences, the existence of a prima facie case, the nature of the death (ante‑mortem firearm injuries suggesting possible dowry death), and the risk of witness tampering. Citing Supreme Court precedents on bail jurisprudence and the recent Mahesh Chand decision, the court concluded that the allegations warranted continued detention. Consequently, the third bail application was dismissed, with the trial court directed to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged dowry death under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the accused warranting denial of bail
- Whether the risk of witness tampering or influencing the investigation justifies refusal of bail
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- IPC 498A
- IPC 304B
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
- prima facie case
- witness tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5232 of 2026
Manoj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Sen
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sen, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Alok Sharma,
learned AGA for State.
2. This is third bail application filed by applicant-Manoj in Case Crime No.
481 of 2022 (Session Trial No. 365 of 2022), under Sections 498A, 304B
IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Budhana,
District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. First bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.05
.2024 and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:
"7. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred
factual and legal background and in view of established principle of
jurisprudence of bail i.e 'bail is rule and jail is exception' as well as
relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether
there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii)
severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the
accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of
the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced; (viii) danger of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail etc. and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must
assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559,
Manoj Kumar Khokar vs State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501,
The State of Jharkhand vs Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta:
BAIL No. 5232 of 2026
2
Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP(Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs
The State of U.P. and Ors : Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal
No.2782 of 2023), therefore, I am of considered opinion that it is not a fit
case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following grounds:-
(a) Applicant before this Court is husband of deceased, who died due to
injury within about five years of her marriage.
(b) Court takes note of nature of occurrence and nature of injury and at
this stage a definite observation could not be made that it was a case of
suicide though Court takes note that at this stage there is no charge under
Section 302 IPC.
8. In view of above, the application is rejected. However, considering that
applicant is in jail for about two years and five years and trial is not
proceeding, therefore, Trial Court concerned is directed to proceed for
expeditious disposal of trial and in case it is not progressed substantially
within ten months from today, the applicant will have liberty to approach
this Court or Trial Court concerned, as advised, alongwith status of trial.
9. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps."
4. Second bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated
18.09.2025 and the order is reproduced hereinafter:
"1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sen, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Upendra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application was adjourned on 08.05.2025, 27.05.2025 and today
i.e. 18.09.2025, it is finally decided after five months.
3. In the trial the opportunity to cross-examination of PW-1 was closed
on 21.05.2025. Later on, vide order dated 27.05.2025, on condition,
permission was granted to cross-examine of prosecution witness no.1.
Thereafter, on 16.09.2025 cross-examination of PW-1 was partially done.
However, till date his cross-examination has not concluded probably on
the ground that he has not appeared though there is no specific reference
in the order sheet annexed alongwith this application.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note that applicant is in
jail since 23.12.2021 i.e. three years and about 9 months, therefore, while
disposing of this application it is directed that the applicant will take all
endeavor to conclude cross examination of PW-1 a relevant witness
expeditiously.
BAIL No. 5232 of 2026
3
5. The concerned Superintendent of Police is also directed that he will
ensure the presence of PW-1. If any coercive measures is taken by the
learned Trial Court. The Court also takes note that initially 22 witnesses
was proposed by the prosecution, however, now the prosecution wants to
examine only 11 witnesses.
6. Applicant will have an opportunity to file fresh bail application after
the period of three months alongwith the status of the trial.
7. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps."
5. According to status report initially 22 prosecution witnesses were
proposed and later on prosecution proposed only 16 witnesses to be
examined, out of which testimony of 4 witnesses have already been
completed, therefore, trial is proceeding. The applicant is in jail since
23.12.2021, i.e., for about four years and four months.
6. As per post mortem report cause of death is ante mortem firearm injuries,
therefore, it may be a case that in case of conviction applicant be awarded
maximum punishment of life imprisonment as well as Court takes note of a
recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand vs. State of
U.P. and another, 2026 INSC 440 wherein reason for cause of death in a
case arising out of 'dowry death' is considered to be a vital ground for the
purpose of consideration of bail application.
7. In aforesaid circumstances, the bail application is rejected.
May 5, 2026
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…