HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5396 of 2026 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for informant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is, however, husband of deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter. 4. He further argued actually marriage of the applicant was solemnized with deceased in the year 2019 and with the wedlock of the applicant and deceased two daughters were born but deceased wanted a male child but subsequently she could not conceive and after medical investigation it was found that she was having problem of fibroid in her uterus and this fact is evidence from the ultrasound reports of the deceased dated 17.8.2025 and 20.9.2025 which have been filed along with supplementary affidavit dated 22.4.2026 and when deceased came to know about this fact then she gathered an impression that in future she will never conceive and, therefore, within ten days from the last ultra sound report she committed suicide by hanging. He next submits, post mortem report also shows, deceased died due to hanging. 5. He further argued, after the death of the deceased the informant side was informed and informant arrived and participated in the inquest proceeding and next day he lodged F.I.R. of the present case on the basis of false allegation of torture for dowry. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, Ashish Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, G.A., Neerava Srivastava Vijay Vishwakarma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He further argued, even from the F.I.R. it reflects it is based on vague allegation of demand of dowry and this fact also suggests actually it is not a case of dowry death. 7. He further argued, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 16.10.2025 i.e. for last 6-1/2 months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for dowry but they could not dispute the fact that deceased died due to hanging and apart from the ligature mark she did not sustain any injury and even her hyoid bone was found intact. They also could not dispute the fact that from the ultra sound report of the deceased it reflects she was suffering with uterus fibroid. They also could not dispute the fact that in the F.I.R. it has not been mentioned what was the demand of dowry and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last more than 6-1/2 months. 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 within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for dowry but post mortem report suggests deceased died due to hanging and apart from the ligature mark she did not sustain any other injury and her hyoid bone was also intact and, therefore, prima facie it appears to be a case of suicidal death and considering the ultra sound report of the deceased the reason of suicide disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of argument also cannot completely ruled out at this stage. 11. Further, deceased died about after six years of her marriage and in the F.I.R. it has not been mentioned what was demand of dowry. It reflects very casually in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that on small matrimonial issues and due to dowry deceased was subjected to cruelty by the applicant. Further, even it reflects after death of the deceased informant side was informed by the applicant side and after receiving information informant arrived and he participated in the inquest proceeding and next day the F.I.R. of the present case was lodged. 12. Considering all the above facts the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that, prima facie, it does not appear to be a case of dowry death cannot be ruled out at this stage. 13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present BAIL No. 5396 of 2026 2 matter he is in jail for 6-1/2 months. 14. Further law is settled, unless proven guilt an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail should not be dismissed either for preventive or punitive purpose. 15. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant -Vijay Vishwakarma 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. 18. 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. 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. May 7, 2026 Kumar Manish BAIL No. 5396 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad