HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13049 of 2026 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 376 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is however husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, however, post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to strangulation but it is not a case of homicidal death. He further submits, actually applicant was very poor and therefore deceased committed suicide and it appears, autopsy surgeon wrongly noted that it is a case of strangulation. 4. He further submits, even during trial when prosecution witnesses appeared before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and from their statements it reflects, it is not a case of dowry death as they did not state that deceased was subjected to demand of dowry. 5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 03.08.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years and till date out of 33 witness only three could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vishnu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within 13 months of her marriage due to strangulation and there is also allegation of torture for demand of dowry and as deceased died due to strangulation, therefore, it is a case of homicidal death and applicant was husband of the deceased and he failed to explain the homicidal death of his wife. 7. 7. Learned AGA further submits, however, applicant made an averment that actually it is a case of suicidal death but considering the post mortem report of the deceased it reflects, the defence taken by the applicant in the bail application prima facie appears to be false. 8. Learned AGA further submits, it appears, there are however some contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to torture of deceased for demand of dowry but at this stage this Court cannot appreciate the evidence recorded before the trial court and trial court can only appreciate the evidence during trial. 9. Learned AGA further submits, however applicant is in jail for last one and half years and till date out of 33 witnesses only three witnesses could be examined but considering the nature of allegation and the facts of the case it is not proper to release the applicant on bail merely on this ground. Learned AGA further submits, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail and instant bail application should be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. Applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within 13 months of her marriage in her matrimonial home due to strangulation and there is also allegation of torture for demand of dowry. 12. Further, as post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to strangulation, therefore, prima facie it appears to be a case of homicidal death. 13. Further, however, in paragraph-25 applicant made an averment that actually it is a case of suicidal death and deceased committed suicide by hanging but considering the post mortem report of the deceased prima facie averment made in paragraph-25 of the affidavit appears to be false. BAIL No. 13049 of 2026 2 14. Further, however, as per learned counsel for applicant during trial there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses with regard to torture for demand of dowry but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that at the stage of bail this Court cannot appreciate the evidence and only trial court during trial can appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 15. Further, however, applicant is in jail for last more than one and half years and out of 33 witnesses till date only three witnesses could be examined but considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife has been murdered in her matrimonial home and applicant not only failed to explain her homicidal death but he even has taken a false defence, in view of this Court merely on the basis of his incarceration it is not proper to release him on bail. 16. Further, even in view of this Court there must be some balance between period of incarceration suffered by an accused, allegation made against him and punishment provided for the alleged offences. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 20. However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than one and half years trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties if there is no legal impediment. April 20, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 13049 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad