Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Gabhana, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites about five years before the incident. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry and thereby led her to death on 13.03.2025.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶13

Learned counsel has further stated that there is no averment regarding demand of dowry. There are plain allegations against the applicant. It is nowhere mentioned as to what was demanded in dowry, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.

¶14

BAIL No. 30532 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2025. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶18

The Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909 , has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the trial is going on as two witnesses have been examined to date, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶20

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶21

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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.

¶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.

¶23

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶24

September 8, 2025 Sumit S

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Similar cases

Subhash Singh vs State of U.P.

Sugreev vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kirashna vs State of U.P.

Chotu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Avtar Chauhan Alias Pintoo vs State of U.P.

Jitendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others