Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6384 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46148 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shahzad Alam,M J Akhtar,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned Advocate apprised the Court that today he has filed his power on behalf of the informant, therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list. However, he submits, he is ready to argue the case. 2. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shahzad Alam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 357 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80, 123, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and his parents on 17.07.2024 and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant on 26.05.2023 and after marriage they tortured her for demand of dowry and on 15.07.2024 they have administered poison in her food due to which on 16.07.2024 she died. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, however, applicant is husband of the deceased but he has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture. 6. He further submits, however, informant during investigation disclosed that there was demand of Rs. Five lakhs and a motorcycle but in the FIR he did not disclose this fact and this fact clearly suggests that FIR of the present case is based on vague allegation of demand of dowry and torture. 7. He further submits, during post mortem the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved but now viscera report is on record, which has been annexed at page-76 of the paper-book and from its perusal, it reflects, no poison was found, therefore, it cannot be said that deceased died under abnormal circumstances and, therefore, applicant cannot be held liable for offence under Section 80 B.N.S. 8. He further submits, it appears, deceased died natural death and after her death only being her husband, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with his parents. 9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 30.07.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased died within one year of her marriage and applicant is her husband and there is also allegation of demand Rs. Five lakhs and motorcycle and torture but they could not dispute the fact that there was no specific allegation of demand of dowry could be disclosed in the FIR of the present case and there is no evidence which can show that deceased died under abnormal circumstances. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within a year of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but it reflects, informant did not disclose any specific allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR of the present case and during investigation he started making allegation that there was demand of a motorcycle and Rs. Five lakhs. 13. Further, from the post mortem, it reflects that cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved and now viscera report is on record and from its perusal it reflects, no poison was found in it and considering the viscera report and post mortem report of the deceased, the argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that prima facie, it could not be reflected that deceased died under abnormal circumstances, therefore, applicant cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 80 B.N.S., cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 30.07.2024. 15. Therefore, considering the 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 - Sunil 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. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad