Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49661 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11138 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivkumar Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Kumar Thakur,Sharad Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Shivkumar Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 284 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Sahatwar, District Ballia. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 08.11.2022 by Kallu Rajbhar against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that his daughter Seema Rajbhar was married to Shivkumar Rajbhar the applicant on 11.05.2022 in which he had given gifts and dowry as per his wish. He had given a motorcycle, Rs. 50,000/- cash, sewing machine, jewellery and other household articles. Later on, the accused persons due to non fulfillment of dowry, used to torture and assault his daughter. The accused persons used to taunt the deceased and used to tell her to ask her father for rice, daal, flour otherwise she would not be given food to eat. He consoled his daughter and told her that slowly-slowly things would become right and started sending items every month but her in-laws did not stop their demand and used to torture her. On 05.11.2022 Shivkumar his son-in-law called him on phone and told him that his sister has committed suicide by hanging herself on which he and his brother went towards Saryu river where on the way he asked people who told them that the dead body has been taken on a motorcycle after which he went there and was told that the body has been thrown in the river and the accused persons have returned back on motorcycle. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation that the deceased has been murdered by the applicant and his family members is false and incorrect. It is submitted that there was never any demand of dowry of any article from the deceased. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and three other co-accused persons under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. It is submitted that the deceased was a hot tempered lady and she used to threaten to commit suicide if her desires were not fulfilled. It is further submitted that co-accused Ramayan Rajbhar, Chaniya Devi and Umesh Kumar Rajbhar have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 28.06.2023 and 01.04.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 25587 of 2023 (Ramayan Rajbhar and another Vs. State of U.P.) and 12462 of 2024 (Umesh Kumar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.11.2022. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house and the death is unnatural. It is further submitted that even the dead body of the deceased was not recovered and was disposed off by the applicant and other co-accused persons and as such was not subjected to postmortem examination and thus the cause of death could not be ascertained. It is submitted that the death was unnatural as there is nothing on record to show that the deceased died a natural death. It is submitted that in so far as the co-accused who have been granted bail are concerned, they are the father-in- law, mother-in-law and dewar of the deceased but the applicant is the husband of the deceased and thus his case stands on a different footing with that of co-accused. 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 the husband of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was thrown in the river and as such could not be recovered and postmortem examination could not be conducted. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased died a natural death. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. There is an allegation of torture and demand of dowry by the applicant and other accused persons. The applicant is the husband of the deceased as such his case is distinguishable with that of co-accused who have been granted bail. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad