Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61391 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8577 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Mahesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1159 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80 BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Highway, District Mathura. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 12.12.2024 by Sitaram against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Arti was solemnized with Sunil on 19.11.2018 in which he had given gifts and dowry of about Rs. 8 lakh along with motorcycle, jewellery and household articles. The accused persons were not happy with it and there was additional demand of dowry of Rs. 3 lakh and a car due to which they used to harass and torture his daughter. In the meantime, his daughter gave birth to a girl on 11.12.2024. He received an information through the father-in-law who is the applicant that his daughter is admitted in the hospital. He went there and found his daughter to be dead. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that Sunil the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is submitted that the applicant on the date and time of the incident he was working at Railway Station, Mathura on daily wages after retirement of ticket selling at its counter. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.01.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him of demand of dowry, harassment and torture of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received two lacerated wounds on her body, there was fractured of nasal bone and rupture of the brain and the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. It is submitted that the same goes to show that the deceased was murdered. It is submitted that there are allegations in the FIR of the applicant along with other co-accused persons indulging in torture and harassment of the deceased and demanding dowry. It is submitted further that the applicant resides in the same house where the deceased and her husband were living. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another : SLP (Criminal) No. 15156 of 2024, decided on 03.03.2025 and while placing para 15 of the same has submitted that the gravity of the offence also needs to be looked into and there is nothing on record that the deceased died a natural death. It is submitted that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial house. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him of demand of dowry from the deceased. The postmortem examination report shows two lacerated wounds on the body of the deceased which are as under: "1. L/w size 7cm x 2cm present over head. 2. L/w size 9cm x 2cm present over face with nasal bone fractured." 8. The brain was found to be ruptured. The cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries, thus the same goes to show that the deceased was assaulted by a weapon. The death is unnatural. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad