Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17650 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47297 of 2024 Applicant :- Brijesh Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aniket Yadav,Mahendra Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ali Hasan,G.A.,Istiyaq Ali Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by State-respondent is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent and Shri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.115 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85 B.N.S. & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.07.2024 against applicant and his family members and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the grand-daughter of the informant on 07.12.2023 and after marriage, applicant and his family members tortured her for demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry on 11.07.2024, they committed her murder by administering poison and did not even inform the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however applicant is husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith his family members. 6. He further submits that actually marriage of the deceased with the applicant was her community marriage under the scheme of Chief Minister and same was performed on 29.11.2023 and it appears as she was not satisfied with her marriage with applicant, therefore, within seven months of her marriage, she consumed some poisonous substance and died and after her death on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 7. He further submits that during post-mortem, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved but till date viscera report is not on record, therefore, till date, it cannot be said that deceased died under abnormal circumstances. 8. He further submits that even if deceased would have been died due to consumption of some poisonous substance then also it cannot be said that it is not a case of suicidal death. 9. He further submits that informant i.e. grandfather of the deceased in the FIR did not disclose what was the demand of dowry and therefore, FIR of the present case is based on vague allegation of demand of dowry. He further submits, however during investigation, he and other witnesses started making allegation that there was demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and this fact clearly suggests that during investigation they developed the case and actually it is not a case of dowry death. 10. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.07.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven months of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- but they could not dispute the fact that in the FIR informant did not disclose what was the demand of dowry and for the first time during investigation through the statements of the witnesses this fact has been surfaced that there was demand of Rs.50,000/-. 12. Learned counsel for the informant however submits that from perusal of the FIR, it reflects that in the mouth of the deceased blood was present and her lips and nails were cyanosed, therefore, prima-facie, it appears to be a case of poisoning but he could not dispute, it cannot be said that poison was forcely administered. He further could not dispute, it can be a case of suicidal death. 13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. Applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven months of her marriage due to demand of dowry but in the FIR, informant did not disclose what was the demand of dowry however, during investigation, he disclosed that there was allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR of the present case is based on vague allegation of demand of dowry, cannot be ruled out. 15. Further, however, from the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, it reflects that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant on 07.12.2023 and from their statements, it could not be reflected that her marriage with the applicant was her community marriage but from page 34 of the paper book, it reflects that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 29.11.2023 under the scheme of Chief Minister as community marriage and therefore, it reflects that the correct fact has not been disclosed by the informant and witnesses. 16. Further, till date, viscera report of the deceased is not on record, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that deceased died under abnormal circumstances. 17. Further, even if in the viscera report, it would find that she died due to the consumption of poison then also at this stage, it cannot be said that it is not a case of suicidal death. 18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.07.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant- Brijesh Rajbhar, 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 :- 6.2.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad