Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 102156 (ALL)

MAUSIM v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/33896/2025 · 2025-10-06

Samit Gopal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33896 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Mausim, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0037 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and 3, 4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Hazrat Nagar Garhi, District Sambhal. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 03.03.2025 by Wajid against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that his daughter Shagufta was married to the applicant on 10.10.2024 as per Muslim rites and customs. On 29.03.2025 at about 08:00 pm he received an information from Rafiuddin father of the applicant that his daughter has died. The accused persons after marriage used to torture her and there was a demand of additional dowry being a Maruti car due to which she used to be tortured and harassed. His daughter had told her family members many times about it. The accused persons have murdered his daughter. Report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing para 22 of the affidavit that as a matter of fact the deceased was a short tempered lady and used to talk to some persons on her mobile which was not liked by her family members and was opposed by them but the same was not tolerable by her and thus she committed suicide by hanging herself in a fit of anger. It is submitted that the postmortem examination report also is consistent with the suicide as the doctor found a single ligature mark without any external injury and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemrotem hanging. It is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Autar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mausim .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that there was no occasion for the applicant and other co- accused persons to demand dowry at the time of marriage as motorcycle was demanded which was already given. It is submitted that the factum of demand of dowry is false version. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.04.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant on 10.10.2024 and she died on 29.03.2025 which is within six months of marriage. It is submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. He is named in the FIR and even there is allegation of demand of dowry against him. It is submitted that in so far as the recital in para 22 of the affidavit is concerned, the same is without any support and without any credible evidence. It is further submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons on 03.07.2025. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations of torture and demand of dowry by the applicant. The deceased died within six months of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The burden as is being discharged by the applicant in para 22 does not at all transpire confidence and is without credible evidence. No ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. October 7, 2025 M. ARIF BAIL No. 33896 of 2025 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad