HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14328 of 2026 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Brijesh Nath Rai, learned counse for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ajnar, District-Mahoba, 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. 4. He further argued, actually deceased was highly sensitive lady and on some matrimonial issues she used to became hyper and on the date of incident she insisted the applicant to accompany her on Raksha Bandhan festival but applicant denied and thereafter in rash she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance (salfas). 5. He further argued, however, in the post mortem report the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved but now viscera report has been received and it has been filed along with the instant bail application and according to it, she died due to consumption of Aluminium Phasphide and, therefore, even viscera report of the deceased supports the defence taken by the applicant that deceased actually committed suicide by consuming salfas. 6. He further argued, even during trial informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased and her mother did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and their statements recorded before the trial court have been annexed along with the instant bail application. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brajesh Nath Rai, Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Satish Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. He further argued, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 4.8.2025 i.e. for last more than nine months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died under abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home within 1-1/2 years of her marriage and there was also allegation of torture for demand of dowry but it reflects that father of the deceased i.e. informant and even her mother during trial did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and even according to them deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. 11. Further, however, during post mortem the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved but now viscera report has been received and according to it she died due to consumption of aluminium phasphide. 12. Considering the viscera report and the statements of the parents of the deceased recorded before the trial court, possibility of suicide committed by deceased, at this stage, cannot be ruled out specially considering the fact that autopsy surgeon did not note any injury on the body of the deceased during post mortem. 13. Further, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the statements of the parents of the deceased recorded before the trial court the defence taken by the applicant in the instant bail application with regard to the suicide committed by the deceased also cannot be completely brushed aside. 14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 4.8.2025 i.e. for last more than nine months. 15.Further law is settled bail is a rule while jail is an exception and bail should not be dismissed either for preventive or punitive purpose. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. BAIL No. 14328 of 2026 2 18. Let the applicant -Satish Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 20. 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. May 7, 2026 Kumar Manish BAIL No. 14328 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad