Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33686 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8105 of 2025 Applicant :- Charan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., applicant-Charan Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 121 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ayana, District Auraiya, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that complainant-Hemant Kumar, who is brother of deceased-Himani lodged a first information report on 10.11.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against eight accused persons, namely, Shivam, Charan Singh (applicant), Rajkumari, Saurabh, Gaurav, Arti, Rashmi and Shilpi, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law (jeth) and sisters-in-law (jethani and nanad) of the deceased, respectively, making allegations inter alia that marriage of his sister- Himani was solemnized on 05.11.2024 with Shivam who is son of the applicant. In the marriage, there was consistent demand of R15 motorcycle, gold chain, gold rings, Rs. 5,00,000/- and branded clothes for family members. He being brother of deceased, had given sufficient dowry (Rs. 3,00,000/- cash, all household articles and Honda SP 125 Bike) in the marriage beyond his capacity but they were not satisfied and expressing their displeasure, they returned Honda SP 125 bike. With great difficulties, they agreed for vidaai on the promise by his father that their demands will be fulfilled very soon. Even then they did not take motorcycle. Later on when he went to handover motorcycle to his brother-in-law, on that day, they also humiliated him. On 08.11.2024 when deceased's husband Shivam came to know that there is no money in his sister's account, then she was beaten, and on 09.11.2024, she was done to death in her matrimonial home. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. He has been falsely implicated in this case. F.I.R. was lodged on the next day of incident. In fact, deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Since deceased-Himani was not ready for marriage with the son of the applicant because of her inclination towards another boy, therefore, she committed suicide. The wife of the applicant was present at the time of inquest proceeding and except the ligature mark around the neck, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. against the applicant are false. Hence, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 10.12.2024 having no criminal history to his credit, may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that deceased died her unnatural death within four days of her marriage in her matrimonial home in a suspicious condition. In the F.I.R., serious allegations of demand of dowry has been levelled against the accused persons including the applicant, which amount to cruelty. During investigation, the prosecution witnesses of the fact supported the prosecution case. As per post-mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Under the facts of the case, presumption of dowry death under Sections 117 and 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is also attracted. 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, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage in the light of recent judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad