Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4675 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46864 of 2024 Applicant :- Shani Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeta Shukla,Nisha Singh Parihar,R. P. Singh Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri R.P.Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.238 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85(2) BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.7.2024 against the applicant and others and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant on 16.5.2022 and after marriage applicant and his family members tortured her for demand of Rs.1,50,000/- and on 10.7.2024 due to their torture sister of the informant committed suicide by hanging herself. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is husband of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits that actually applicant was doing private job in Bangalore and deceased used to pressurize him to live with him in Bangalore but applicant was not ready to accept her proposal and only due to this reason in anger she committed suicide by hanging herself and after her death on the basis of false allegation FIR of the present case was lodged against him. 6. He further submits that the post mortem report of the deceased also suggests that she died due to hanging. 7. He further submits that even from the statement of the mother of the deceased recorded during investigation which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, it reflects that there was no dispute between husband and wife with regard to demand of dowry and torture and in her statement mother of the deceased did not state that applicant ever tortured her for demand of dowry and, therefore, from her statement also prima faice it appears that present case is not the case of dowry death. 8. 8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 27.7.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died within two years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and torture but he could not dispute the fact that from the perusal of the statement of the mother of the deceased recorded during investigation it could not be reflected that present case is a case of dowry death. 10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the post mortem report of the deceased prima facie it appears to be a case of suicidal death. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died within two years of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR of the present case but from the perusal of the statement of mother of the deceased recorded during investigation, which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, it reflects that she did not make any allegation of demand of dowry and torture and considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is not the case of dowry death, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 13. Further, post mortem report of the deceased suggests that she died due to hanging and her hyoid bone was found intact and, therefore, prima facie it appears to be a case of suicidal death and the reason of suicide disclosed by applicant in paragraph-18 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail the present matter since 27.7.2024. 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-Shani 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. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad