Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28490 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3565 of 2025 Applicant :- Navi Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Vivek Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Dubey and Sri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 3. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 328 of 2024, under Sections 85 and 108 BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.9.2024 against the applicant and his family members and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant in the year 2015 and after marriage they used to torture her for demand of dowry and earlier a case was also filed in the court in which on 20.7.2024 before witnesses applicant assured that he will not torture his daughter but in spite of that they used to torture her and on 6.9.2024 they committed her murder after beating her. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is the husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter. 6. He further submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 105 BNS but during investigation when it was revealed that actually deceased committed suicide then case was converted under Section 108 BNS. 7. He further submits that some times on some matrimonial issues, dispute arose between husband and wife and in this regard a compromise was also executed but again matrimonial dispute arose between both of them and this time she committed suicide. 8. He further submits that merely due to matrimonial dispute wife of applicant committed suicide therefore, it cannot be said that due to abetment of applicant and his family members she committed suicide. 9. He further submits that there is absolutely no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record. 10. He further submits that applicant is not having criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.10.2024. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is an admitted fact that earlier also due to the torture of the applicant and his family members dispute arose between applicant side and informant side and thereafter on compromise, deceased started living with the applicant in her matrimonial home but it appears that again applicant and his family members started torturing her and this time she committed suicide, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, applicant is the husband of the deceased and there is allegation that due to his abetment his wife committed suicide and record also suggests that earlier also dispute arose between both sides and after compromise the matter was reconciled but it appears that again dispute arose between husband and wife and this time his wife, i.e., deceased committed suicide but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that if due to matrimonial issues some dispute arose between husband and wife and thereafter wife committed suicide then it cannot be said that due to the abetment of the husband and his family members she committed suicide. 14. Further, after considering entire material available on record, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record. 15. Further, law is settled that bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception and unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.10.2024. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant-Navi Ahmad 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 28.2.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad