Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30903 of 2025

Mukesh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : R.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant today in Court which is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Mukesh , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 196 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad.

¶11

The FIR of the present matter was lodged on 05.05.2025 by Rajpal against the applicant, Netram, Chandrawati and Siyopal alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Neetu was solemnized with Mukesh (the applicant) on 20.02.2024. After marriage the accused persons used to torture and harass her and there was a demand of Rs. 3 lakh as dowry. He had given gifts and dowry as per his status. On 03.05.2025 the accused persons assaulted his daughter which was told by her to her mother. On 04.05.2025 the accused persons murdered his daughter. Omvir the jeth of the deceased informed him through his mobile after which he reached there and found the dead body of his daughter was lying on the roof. Report be lodged and action be taken.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present case is a case of suicide which is also consistent with the postmortem examination report wherein the deceased found to have received a single ligature mark on her body

¶13

BAIL No. 30903 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Further while placing para 17 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was forcibly married with the applicant and not with her lover as she was having love affair with some other young boy whom she wanted to marry and thus she was not satisfied with her forceful marriage due to which she committed suicide. It is submitted that in so far as the allegation of demand of dowry is concerned, the same has been stated for the first time when the present FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant, Netram and Smt. Chandrawati whereas co-accused Siyopal has been exonerated, para 11 and 12 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 36 and is in jail since 06.05.2025.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died within 15 months of marriage in her matrimonial house and the death is unnatural. The applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant. It is submitted that the averment in para 17 of the affidavit that the deceased was having love affair with some other young boy is totally vague and there is no such evidence coming forward even after completion of investigation. It is submitted that as such the bail be rejected.

¶17

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant. The deceased died within 15 months of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The reason for committing suicide as is being argued and placed while placing para 17 of the affidavit is totally vague and does not transpire confidence at all. No ground for bail is made out.

¶18