Allowed

Shiv Bhavan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025/8212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad issued bail in a dowry death case. The applicant admitted no criminal antecedents despite general dowry allegations. The court found it a fit case for bail, imposing strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses upon release.

What did the court decide?

Shiv Bhavan was released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to strict conditions prohibiting tampering, intimidation, inducement, and adjournment seeking.

Shiv Bhavan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8212 of 2025

Shiv Bhavan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kr. Sharma, Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anubhav Awasthi, Raghvendra Pratap

¶9

Court No. - 12

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶13

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the daughter of the informantNeelam was married six years ago with the applicant-Shiv Bhavan S/o Nand Kishore. It is alleged that due to demand of dowry, the applicant used to beat Neelam and the deceased was subjected to cruelity due to demand of dowry. On 09.03.2024, Nand Kishore told the informant that his daughter has died. The suspicion is raised that in-laws of the deceased have murdered for dowry.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he is the husband of deceased and no dowry has been demanded by the applicant. The allegation of dowry demand is general and sweeping in nature. The cause of death could not be ascertained during postmortem. According to Lab report, Orgenochloro insecticide poison was found in Viscera. The deceased committed suicide on her own and the applicant cannot be blamed for that.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and submits that it is a case of dowry death and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage

¶16

BAIL No. 8212 of 2025

¶17

¶18

which is unnatural circumstances.

¶19

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that FIR was lodged in misconception. He is not opposing the bail prayer. He has relied on an affidavit filed by him in support of the applicant on 01.09.2025 which is on record.

¶20

On due consideration to the submission advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, the general and sweeping allegation appears to have been made in the prosecution case, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 04.06.2025, cause of death is poisoning and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Shiv Bhavan involved in Case Crime No.132 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 3(5) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Safdarganj, District- Barabanki be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date

¶28

BAIL No. 8212 of 2025

¶29

¶30

fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶31

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

September 23, 2025 dk/

¶34

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Bhavan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Bhavan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Babloo Saroj @ Ajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Babu Joshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Swami Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Mohd. Umair (as Per Fir Mohd. Umar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shivam vs State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Departmen and 3 others