Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51623 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6253 of 2025 Applicant :- Brijendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaustubh Tripathi,Manjari Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Kaustubh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant-Brijendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.07 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Charkhari, District Mahoba. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 11.1.2024 by Kalicharan against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Bhumika was got solemnized with the applicant on 27.2.2023. The accused persons after marriage used to torture and trouble her for dowry. There was demand of a Bolero vehicle and Rs.2 lakh cash as additional dowry. On 8.1.2024, the informant received an information on phone that his daughter is admitted in the hospital. On the said information he reached there and found her to be in a bad condition. Her in-laws were trying for arrangement for taking her somewhere else. Later on his daughter died. The report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per postmortem report cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. It is argued that probable cause of death as opined by the doctor is cardiac arrest. It is argued that there was no demand of dowry either by the applicant or by his family members. It is argued that after the deceased became ill, she was taken to hospital and was being provided treatment but she died. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. The relationship between the applicant and the deceased were very cordial. It is argued that the applicant was in Delhi at the time of incident. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since 14.1.2024. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within one year of her marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. It is argued that there is allegation of demand of dowry. The plea of alibi as is being taken needs to be proved in the trial and is subject matter of trial. The viscera of the deceased was examined in which Aluminum Phosphide poison was found. He has placed before the Court annexure no.1 to the compliance affidavit dated 24.3.2025 filed by him. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within one year of her marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The plea of alibi as is being taken needs to be proved in the trial and is subject matter of trial. In the viscera report of the deceased Aluminum Phosphide poison was found. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad