HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15953 of 2026 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Mayank Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2026, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 123, 61(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kundarki, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter. 4. He further submits, however, in the FIR and in the statement of informant recorded during investigation he made allegation of torture with regard to demand of dowry but before death of the deceased her dying declaration was recorded by learned Magistrate details of which have been noted by the Investigating Officer in the case diary which has been annexed at page-77 of the paper-book and from its perusal it reflects, however, she stated that applicant also tortured her along with other family members but she did not make any allegation of demand of dowry. 5. He further submits, it appears as deceased was on her dying bed and she was not happy with the family members of her husband, therefore she also disclosed the name of applicant in her dying declaration and merely on the basis of her dying declaration at this stage it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of her dowry death. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harishchandra Yadav, Mayank Chandra, Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mustkeem .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He further submits, however, earlier also applicant has been made accused in case of Section 498A IPC which was lodged by wife of brother-in-law of applicant but that case has been quashed by this Court. 7. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 11.03.2026 i.e. for last two months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, deceased died within three months of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and applicant is her father-in-law and in the FIR and in the statement recorded during investigation informant categorically stated that she was tortured for demand of dowry. 9. Learned AGA further submits, even from the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate it reflects, applicant used to torture her. Learned AGA next submits, even applicant is in jail only for last two months. He next submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case applicant should not be released on bail. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. It is a case in which a young bride within three months of her marriage had to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance and in the FIR and in the statement of informant recorded during investigation there is allegation of torture for demand of dowry even against applicant, who is father-in-law of the deceased. 12. Further, even from the record it reflects, before death of the deceased her dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate and in the dying declaration she categorically stated that applicant also used to torture her along with other family members including her mother-in-law and therefore she consumed Salfas and she did not want to live. However, in the dying declaration deceased did not disclose the fact that she was also subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry but this fact is evident from the FIR and even from the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, therefore, prima facie at this stage it cannot be said that applicant is not responsible for abnormal death of his daughter-in-law. 13. Further, applicant is in jail only for last two months. BAIL No. 15953 of 2026 2 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 16. 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 12, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 15953 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad