HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31685 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. 2-By means of this bail application, applicant Banwari, who is involved in Case Crime No. 84 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Shahganj, district Jaunpur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the deceased Jyoti, got an F.I.R. lodged on 14.03.2025 against Rohit, Banwari (applicant) and Champa Devi, who are husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law of the deceased, alleging inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 19.05.2019 with Rohit and she was living happily with her in-laws for a year and she has two daughters. Thereafter, her in-laws started harassing her in the name of dowry and used to say that they did not get anything in dowry. The complainant used to go to her house and explain that everything will be alright gradually. On 14.03.2025, his daughter has been murdered by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. 4-The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated. Marriage of applicant's son with the deceased Jyoti was solemnized without dowry. The allegation levelled against the applicant is false. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.03.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Banwari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that as per the post mortem report, the deceased died her unnatural death by strangulation. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the deceased died her unnatural death within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home. As per post mortem report, hyoid bone of the deceased was found fractured and cause of her death is ante mortem strangulation. In the F.I.R., specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused that they were harassing the deceased in the name of dowry. The offence is heinous in nature. Presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 is also attracted in the present case. 7-The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. 8-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, cause of death and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 9-Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. 10-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. September 16, 2025 Shubham BAIL No. 31685 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad