Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29416 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47194 of 2024 Applicant :- Avinash Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Naveen Kumar Rai Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Naveen Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the complainant. 2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ramnagar, District-Varanasi. 3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant Rohit, who is brother of the deceased-Priyanka has lodged an F.I.R. on 04.05.2024 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Avinash (present applicant), Meena Devi, Akhilesh, Kshama and Rimi, who are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law (jethani) and sister-in-law (nand) of deceased making allegation that the marriage of his sister Priyanka was solemnized with the applicant three years ago but after the marriage, his sister was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home by the accused persons. After the said marriage, a male child was also born to her but there was no change in the behaviour of the accused persons, therefore, he in order to satisfy their demand gave Rs. 40,000/- to her sister but there was consistent demand of more money. On 04.05.2024, she was done to death on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. F.I.R. also alleges that whenever he talks with his sister, she used to tell him that her sister-in-law and wife of Akhilesh used to mount pressure upon her for additional dowry. 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case making general allegation of demand of dowry. In fact on the day of incident, deceased was beating her son brutally and with a view to save him, the applicant intervened. Thereafter, some hot-talk / altercation took place between the applicant and the deceased, due to which she went inside her room and bolted the room from inside and committed suicide on account of depression. It is next submitted that no injury has been found on the body of the deceased except a ligature mark around her neck. The case shall not traverse Section 306 I.P.C., therefore, the applicant who has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 04.05.2024 may be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the said submission of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that under the facts of the case, presumption of dowry death under Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act shall also be drawn against the applicant. It is further pointed out that even no information about the incident in question was given by the applicant himself whereas being a husband, it was his moral duty to give information about the said incident to the parents of the deceased. The information about the incident to the police was also given by the family members of the deceased. The applicant was neither present at the time of inquest proceedings nor he cremated the dead body of his wife. The funeral of the deceased was done by her parents and other family members, therefore, the conduct of the applicant also goes against him. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the deceased died her unnatural death within three years of her marriage. The applicant being husband of the deceased was not only responsible for the safety and welfare of his wife, but also under heavy onus to explain her unnatural death, which took place in his own house. As case case of the present applicant stands on different footing to that of other co-accused. 7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad