HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10446 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri A.K. Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 373 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5), 61(2)Ka BNS, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he alongwith other accused committed her murder but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submitted that post mortem report suggests that cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved and now viscera report has been filed by the State through counter affidavit and from its perusal it reflects, deceased died due to consumption of aluminum phosphide and therefore, prima facie, it appears to be a case of suicidal death. 5. He further submitted that actually deceased was having doubt that applicant developed extra marital affair with some other lady and therefore, very often dispute arose between husband and wife and due to this reason she consumed some poisonous substance and died. He next submits, immediately after the incident applicant took her to the hospital and this fact Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Girish Singh, Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sharad Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Mukesh Dubey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) is evident from para 24 of the paper book but inspite of the best efforts she could not survive and died and after her death informant cooked up a false story and lodged FIR of the present case. 6. He further submitted that however during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of daughter of the applicant and deceased namely Navika Dubey then she stated against the applicant and also stated that her mother after the incident informed that applicant administered poison to her but her statement has been recorded after 52 days' of the incident and she appears to be tutored witness. He next submits, even it reflects, she could not herself witness the applicant while he was allegedly administereing poisonous substance to the deceased. 7. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record which prima facie, suggests that applicant committed the murder of his wife i.e. deceased of the case. 8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2025 i.e. for last more than 9 months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and from the statement of his daughter his complicity is apparent but they could not dispute the fact that statement of this witness was recorded after 52 days and even she did not state that before her applicant administered poisonous substance to the deceased. 10. They also could not dispute the fact that from the post mortem report it reflects, cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained and viscera report of the deceased suggests that she died due to consumption of aluminum phosphide and applicant in the instant bail application has taken a defence that deceased was having doubt that he developed illicit relationship with another lady and therefore, she consumed poisonous substance and died. 11. They further could not dispute the fact that after the alleged incident applicant had taken the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the BAIL No. 10446 of 2026 2 case. 13. However applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he committed murder of his wife alongwith others but her post mortem report suggests that her cause of death could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved and from the viscera report it reflects, deceased died due to consumption of aluminum phosphide. 14. Further, however, from the statement of the Navika Dubey, daughter of the applicant and deceased it reflects, according to her applicant administered poison to the deceased i.e. her mother and even her mother disclosed this fact to her but statement of this witness was recorded after 52 days and even her statement does not appear to be convincing. It also reflects, she herself could not witness that applicant administered poisonous substance to the deceased. 15. Considering the over all facts and circumstances discussed above it reflects, there is no prima facie evidence which can suggest that applicant administered poisonous substance to the deceased and possibility of suicide committed by deceased at this stage cannot be ruled out. 16. Further applicant in para-24 of the instant bail application also made an averment that deceased was having doubt that applicant had extra marital affair with one another lady and therefore, dispute very often arose between applicant and deceased and due to this reason she consumed poisonous substance and died. Considering the facts of the case the defence taken by the applicant at this stage cannot be completely brushed aside. 17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2025 i.e. for last more than 9 months. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant-Mukesh Dubey, 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:- BAIL No. 10446 of 2026 3 (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. 21. 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. 22. 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. September 21, 2026 Ankita BAIL No. 10446 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad