Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50181 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39449 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Pramod Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. 4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rajendra Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.C. No. 1114 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 10.02.2024 by Sri Buddha against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that his daughter Sangeeta was married to the applicant on 19.04.2018 and since then the accused persons used to torture and assault her for dowry and there was a demand of Rs. 1 lakh and motorcycle. She used to be kept hungry and tortured by the accused persons. On 05.02.2024 his daughter and son-in-law had come to his house in a Pooja after which on 08.02.2024 his son-in-law in an intoxicated condition in front of relatives assaulted his daughter a lot and took her back forcibly to his village. At about 05:00 pm he received an information from him that his daughter has died after which he and his family members went there and found his daughter dead. 6. 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 that the applicant and the deceased were leading happy married life as is evident from the fact that two children were born from the wedlock, para 22 of the affidavit has been placed. It is submitted that in the FIR four persons namely the Rajendra Kumar the applicant, Jaibai, Kalpana and Gayasi were made as accused but after investigation, co- accused Kalpana was exonerated whereas charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and two other co-accused persons. It is submitted that the present case is a case of suicide which is suggestive from the postmortem examination wherein the deceased was found to have received single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Further, while placing annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 06.03.2025 it is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which the first informant Buddha was examined as PW-1 who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant is false. It is submitted while placing para 23 of the affidavit that the deceased became upset due to hot talk between the applicant and other son-in-laws of the informant as such she went depression and committed suicide. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 23.04.2024. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. It is further submitted that there is an allegation of demand of dowry and deceased being assaulted before her death in her maternal house. It is submitted that since the trial is under progress in which other witnesses of fact are yet to be examined, release of the applicant may have an adverse effect in the trial. 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. 8. 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 deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. There are allegations of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other persons. The trial in the present matter is under progress in which other witnesses are yet to be examined. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad