Allahabad High Court
VIJAY VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The applicant, Vijay Vishwakarma, sought bail in a dowry‑death case (Crime No. 258 of 2025) alleging that his wife’s death was a suicide caused by a uterine fibroid, not a dowry‑related homicide. The prosecution argued that the wife died under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that the FIR alleged dowry cruelty, though it did not specify the dowry demand. The court examined the post‑mortem report, which showed death by hanging with no other injuries, and considered the ultrasound reports indicating a medical condition. Noting the applicant’s clean criminal record and six‑and‑a‑half months of pre‑trial detention, the court emphasized the presumption of innocence and that bail should not be denied merely for preventive or punitive reasons. Consequently, the court granted bail with conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying dowry‑death allegation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case alleged to be a dowry death when evidence suggests suicide.
- Whether the lack of specific dowry demand in the FIR affects the seriousness of the charge for bail purposes.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and duration of pre‑trial detention warrant bail.
- Application of the presumption of innocence and bail principles under Indian criminal law.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 80(2), 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- suicide
- presumption of innocence
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 85 B.N.S.
- Section 80(2) B.N.S.
- Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5396 of 2026
Vijay Vishwakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, Ashish Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, G.A., Neerava
Srivastava
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for informant and Sri R.N.
Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2)
B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sujanganj, District
Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is, however,
husband of deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been made
accused in the present matter.
4. He further argued actually marriage of the applicant was solemnized
with deceased in the year 2019 and with the wedlock of the applicant and
deceased two daughters were born but deceased wanted a male child but
subsequently she could not conceive and after medical investigation it
was found that she was having problem of fibroid in her uterus and this
fact is evidence from the ultrasound reports of the deceased dated
17.8.2025 and 20.9.2025 which have been filed along with supplementary
affidavit dated 22.4.2026 and when deceased came to know about this
fact then she gathered an impression that in future she will never conceive
and, therefore, within ten days from the last ultra sound report she
committed suicide by hanging. He next submits, post mortem report also
shows, deceased died due to hanging.
5. He further argued, after the death of the deceased the informant side
was informed and informant arrived and participated in the inquest
proceeding and next day he lodged F.I.R. of the present case on the basis
of false allegation of torture for dowry.
BAIL No. 5396 of 2026
2
6. He further argued, even from the F.I.R. it reflects it is based on vague
allegation of demand of dowry and this fact also suggests actually it is not
a case of dowry death.
7. He further argued, applicant is not having any previous criminal history
and in the present matter, he is in jail since 16.10.2025 i.e. for last 6-1/2
months.
8. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as counsel for the
informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit applicant is husband of
the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under
abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home and there is also
allegation of torture for dowry but they could not dispute the fact that
deceased died due to hanging and apart from the ligature mark she did not
sustain any injury and even her hyoid bone was found intact. They also
could not dispute the fact that from the ultra sound report of the deceased
it reflects she was suffering with uterus fibroid. They also could not
dispute the fact that in the F.I.R. it has not been mentioned what was the
demand of dowry and applicant is not having any criminal history and he
is in jail for last more than 6-1/2 months.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died
within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in her
matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for dowry but
post mortem report suggests deceased died due to hanging and apart from
the ligature mark she did not sustain any other injury and her hyoid bone
was also intact and, therefore, prima facie it appears to be a case of
suicidal death and considering the ultra sound report of the deceased the
reason of suicide disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant during
the course of argument also cannot completely ruled out at this stage.
11. Further, deceased died about after six years of her marriage and in the
F.I.R. it has not been mentioned what was demand of dowry. It reflects
very casually in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that on small
matrimonial issues and due to dowry deceased was subjected to cruelty by
the applicant. Further, even it reflects after death of the deceased
informant side was informed by the applicant side and after receiving
information informant arrived and he participated in the inquest
proceeding and next day the F.I.R. of the present case was lodged.
12. Considering all the above facts the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant that, prima facie, it does not appear to be a case
of dowry death cannot be ruled out at this stage.
13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
BAIL No. 5396 of 2026
3
matter he is in jail for 6-1/2 months.
14. Further law is settled, unless proven guilt an accused is deemed to be
innocent and bail should not be dismissed either for preventive or punitive
purpose.
15. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant -Vijay Vishwakarma be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.
19. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 7, 2026
Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…