Ajay Kumar Bharatiya Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86823

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17630 of 2025

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Bharatiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Riyajuddin Ansari,Vimal Dharm Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Riyajuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ajay Kumar Bharatiya , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0218 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj.

¶9

The FIR of the present matter was lodged on 04.10.2024 by Rajkaran against the applicant only alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Ekta Bhartiya was solemnized with Ajay (the applicant) on 28.02.2023 in which he had given all household articles and he had spent total of Rs. 5 lakh in the marriage. After marriage, due to less dowry there was demand of a motorcycle by Ajay for which his daughter informed him. On 11.09.2024 in the night, the accused assaulted his daughter and murdered her by hanging. On information he reached there and found tongue of his daughter was out and blood was coming out from nose and ear. She was having pregnancy of about 3-4 months. FIR be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is not involved in the matter. It is submitted that the allegations as levelled against the applicant are general and omnibus in nature. While placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant had a love affair with the deceased and their marriage

¶11

was solemnized with their consent under the Mukhyamantri Samuhik Vivah Yojna on 28.02.2023 and there was no demand of any dowry. Further, while placing para 28 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was disturbed due to some conversation with family members from her maternal side after which she mentally upset and she told the applicant to sleep and when the applicant woke up in the morning he found that his wife committed suicide by hanging. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 08.10.2024.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. She died in her matrimonial house after 20 months of marriage which is within seven years. It is submitted there is an allegation of demand of dowry and assaulted the deceased by the applicant. It is submitted that there is burden upon the applicant, particularly, he being husband of the deceased to discharge the same, however, up to this stage, the applicant has failed to discharge the said burden. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died after 20 months of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural within seven years. The applicant has failed to discharge the burden regarding the death of his wife in his house within 20 months of marriage. There is an allegation of demand of dowry. No ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

¶14