Dismissed¶17

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2025BAIL/21637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; dowry death; S. 304B IPC; S. 498A IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act; Case Crime No. 278 of 2023; P.S. Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar; applicant Ajay vs. State of U.P.; death within precincts of applicant's house; prompt FIR; only-one-witness argument falsified (FIR Exhibit KA-2, PW-2, 29.04.2023); custody since 04.08.2023; expeditious trial direction per Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:133080; decided 06.08.2025 by Justice Krishan Pahal.

What did the court decide?

None; bail application rejected. The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously if there is no legal impediment. ¶17

Ajay Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail application rejected. The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ajay is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Court's answer

Bail declined: taking into consideration that the deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant and that the FIR was prompt, the Court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was held devoid of merits and accordingly rejected.

¶17

Key takeaways

The defence contention that only one prosecution witness had been examined was falsified: the FIR stood exhibited as Exhibit KA-2 through prosecution witness No.2 on 29.04.2023, indicating the possibility that more witnesses had been examined.ratio¶15
The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶18
The observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought by the parties for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) rejected the bail application of Ajay in Case Crime No. 278 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act (P.S. Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar) arising from the death of the applicant's wife allegedly due to cruelty for dowry. The Court declined bail because the deceased died within the precincts of the applicant's house and the FIR was prompt, and it falsified the defence claim that only one witness had been examined, noting the FIR was exhibited as Exhibit KA-2 through prosecution witness No.2 on 29.04.2023. The trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously in view of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment, with observations confined to the bail disposal and without bearing on trial merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133080

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21637 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram,Renu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed today by the State is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file rejoinder.

¶8

Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationBithoor, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 18.05.2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 02.08.2023 at about 04:00 AM.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 15 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The inquest was prepared well before the institution of FIR and the applicant was present at the time of said proceeding. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The deceased has committed suicide and applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶12

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that

¶13

there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant and only one prosecution witness has been examined during trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.08.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶15

A perusal of the file indicates that the FIR has been exhibited as Exhibit KA-2 that too by the prosecution witness No.2 on 29.04.2023, as such, there is every possibility that some more witnesses might have been examined, as such, argument of the counsel for the applicant that only one witness has been examined stands falsified.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the FIR being prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶17

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶18

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶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.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Karan

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases