HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32800 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. By means of this application, applicant-Udayveer, who is involved in Case Crime No. 33 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pinahat, District Agra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant-Gangaram, who is father of the deceased, got a first information report lodged on 24.03.2025 against Udayveer (applicant), Anandi, Dhara Singh and Rajveer, who are husband, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased respectively stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the applicant three years back. In the marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per his capacity, but his daughter's in- laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and there was consistent demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle. During this period, she delivered two children, namely, Kunal (presently aged about 2 years) and Lado (presently aged about 5 months), but there was no change in behaviour of her in-laws. On 23.03.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., he received information that his daughter has been done to death. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Udayveer .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) case. General allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been levelled against the accused persons. At the time of inquest proceeding, the applicant and his family members were present there. F.I.R. was registered after receiving the post mortem report of the deceased. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2025, therefore he may be released on bail. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in the inquest proceeding, applicant, who is husband of the deceased on inquiring told that her wife returned home after taking mud for plastering the house, she got dizzy and fainted and after sometime she died. Referring the said statement of the applicant, much emphasis has been given by contending that from the side of applicant, effort was made to establish that deceased died her natural death, whereas as per post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, hence bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the deceased died her unnatural death within three years of her marriage in her matrimonial home. The applicant being husband of the deceased was not only responsible for the safety and welfare of his wife, but also under heavy onus to explain her unnatural death, which took place in his own house. The statement given by the applicant at the time of inquest proceeding of the dead body of the deceased indicates that he has tried to mislead the police personnel with ulterior motives, which shows his unnatural conduct. Under the facts of the case, presumption of dowry death under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 shall also be drawn against the applicant. 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. BAIL No. 32800 of 2025 2 The Offence is heinous in nature. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479 and 'X' vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has held that if offence is heinous in nature and trial of the accused is in progress, bail should not be granted. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, instant bail application of the applicant is rejected. It is made clear that observations, if any made in this order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not effect the merit of the case. Trial Court is directed to made an endeavor to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court, concerned within a week for information and compliance. September 23, 2025 Kashifa BAIL No. 32800 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad