Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40295 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6454 of 2025 Applicant :- Narendra Bhartiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Narendra Bhartiya, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 676 of 2023, under Section 498-A, 304-B, 316 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 20.12.2023 by Rajendra Kumar against Narendra Bhartiya (the applicant), Shivam (devar) and Tanu Prajapati (devrani) with the allegation that his sister Mala Bhartiya was married to Narendra Bhartiya in the year 2021. Today on 20.12.2023 at about 03.00 PM he received a phone call from his brother-in-law / sadhu on mobile that Mala has committed suicide by hanging. On the said information he went to the house of his sister and found her body lying on a plank in the courtyard. The information about death of his sister was not given by her in-laws. The accused persons have been assaulting her since long and had also chased her out of the house and were demanding money from her. The demand was raised many times. The accused persons have murdered her for demand of their dowry. A report be lodged and action be taken. Mahesh Kumar is the scribe of the first information report. 5. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted in which the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Further the doctor found a gravid uterus present in which a 29cm female foetus was present. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing paragraph 15 of the affidavit it is submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he was not present in the house and was on duty at Sushil Bicycle Store situated in Kydganj, Prayagraj. Further while placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit it is submitted that neither the applicant was present at the place of occurrence nor was involved in the incident. It is submitted that co-accused Tanu Prajapati the devrani and Shivam Bhartiya the devar of the deceased have been granted bail by the concerned trial court vide orders dated 02.03.2024 and 28.03.2024 passed in Bail Application Nos. 971 of 2024 (Tanu Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.) and 1304 of 2024 (Shivam Bhartiya Vs. State of U.P.), paragraph 24 and copy of the said orders annexed as annexure- 11 to the affidavit have been placed before the Court. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 22.12.2023. 7. 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 two years of marriage. The death is unnatural in her matrimonial house. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture & harassment of the deceased by the accused persons. It is submitted that in so far as alibi as is being claimed is concerned, the same needs to be proved in trial and is a matter of trial. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within two years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The alibi as is being claimed needs to be proved in trial like any other evidence. In so far as two co-accused who have been granted bail are concerned, they are the devrani and devar of the deceased but the applicant is the husband of the deceased and as such his case is distinguishable with that of co-accused. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad