Allahabad High Court

PANKAJversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

Bail was denied to the accused.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Pankaj, who is charged under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act for the alleged dowry‑related death of his wife. The prosecution argued that the FIR was lodged promptly, the death occurred within the accused's residence, and the trial is nearing completion with six witnesses already examined, invoking the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The defence contended that the deceased had filed a police application earlier, that the witness statement contains contradictions, that the accused has no prior criminal record, and that prolonged pre‑trial detention violates his Article 21 rights. The court held that the circumstances – prompt FIR, location of death, and the advanced stage of trial – did not warrant bail and that the presumption of dowry death remained unrebutted. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court directing an expeditious conclusion of the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a dowry‑death case where the FIR is prompt and the death occurred in the accused's house.
Whether the contradictions in the witness statement and the accused's claim of suicide are sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention infringes the accused's right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 323, 498A, 506
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
dowry death
Section 498A
Section 304B
pre‑trial detention
Article 21
Section 113B
Domestic Violence Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9309 of 2026

Pankaj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhijeet Singh, Mohd. Monis
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 104 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Abhijeet Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.
312 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 13 of 2024, under Sections
498A, 304-B, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jamania,
District Ghazipur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The
first one was rejected by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 26127 of 2025 vide order dated 30.7.2025 and the
following order was passed:-

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in
Case Crime No.13 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 506
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jamania District
Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
BAIL No. 9309 of 2026
2

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was
solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on
24.06.2021. The applicant and other family members are stated to
have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.50,000/- as
dowry, thereby leading her to death on 11.01.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is a dispute
earlier on between the husband wife duo and it was regarding the
habit of applicant of taking liquor and Ganja. The matter was settled
between the families as the deceased had given an application at
police station on 04.05.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the
statement of PW-1 has been recorded and he has given
contradictory statement in it. He has also admitted in his cross-
examination that the deceased was fed up with the habit of the
applicant taking liquor and due to his poor financial condition, as
such, the deceased had committed suicide.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since
14.01.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased
has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as
such, he is not entitled for bail. The trial is going on and the
statement of PW-1 was recorded in April, 2025 and at this stage, the
minor contradictions, if any, cannot be taken into consideration.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having
expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled
with the fact that the trial is moving on, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant.

10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is,
BAIL No. 9309 of 2026
3

accordingly, rejected.

11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before
the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view
of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab;
2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India;
(2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

12. 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."

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is
languishing in jail since 14.1.2024 as such, period of incarceration is more
than two years and three months. His fundamental rights enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as there is no likelihood
of early conclusion of trial in near future. In case, the applicant is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

6. This Court had called for the status of trial and the status report dated
18.4.2026 indicates that six witnesses have already been examined. The trial
is moving on and at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled
for bail.

CONCLUSION:

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that already six witnesses have been examined and trial is at its
conclusive end and presumption of Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence
Act does not stand rebutted by the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, rejected.
BAIL No. 9309 of 2026
4

8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.

9. 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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…