Dismissed¶33

Kapil Rajput v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2025BAIL/34687/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; dowry-demand allegations (four-wheeler); unnatural death of wife within seven years of marriage; ligature mark with five other ante-mortem injuries; cause of death asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation; viscera preserved for chemical analysis; defence plea of love marriage and hostile first informant PW-1 Harnarayan; applicant in jail since 27.05.2025; Section 483 BNSS; Sections 85, 80(2) BNS; 3/4 D.P. Act; Case Crime No. 86 of 2025, P.S. Jariya, District Hamirpur; dismissal for want of prosecution recalled and matter restored; Samit Gopal, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; December 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for bail was rejected. ¶33

Kapil Rajput vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for bail was rejected.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Kapil Rajput, husband of the deceased, should be enlarged on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 86 of 2025 under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶9

Court's answer

On hearing counsel and perusing the record, the Court found that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, and that there are allegations of demand of dowry in the FIR against the applicant.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into account that the deceased was found to have received five other injuries apart from the ligature mark on her body and that the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation, with viscera preserved for chemical analysis.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Court concluded that it is not a fit case for bail.ratio¶31
Considering the totality of the case, in particular the nature of evidence available on record, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail.ratio¶32
The order dismissing the bail application for want of prosecution was recalled and the matter restored to its original number after counsel for the applicant appeared and made a mention that he was busy in another Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.) rejected the bail application of Kapil Rajput filed under Section 483 BNSS seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 86 of 2025 (Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jariya, District Hamirpur), arising from the death of his wife Rinki. An earlier dismissal of the application for want of prosecution was recalled on mention and the matter restored to its original number. The Court noted: the applicant is the husband of the deceased; she died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage; the FIR alleges demand of a four-wheeler as dowry; the body bore a ligature mark along with five other injuries; and the cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation, with viscera preserved for chemical analysis. The defence reliance on the first informant (PW-1) having been declared hostile did not persuade the Court. Considering the totality of the case and the nature of evidence on record, the Court held 'I do not find it a fit case for bail' and rejected the bail application; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. Decision dated December 18, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34687 of 2025

¶2

Kapil Rajput

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application. Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State is present.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Kapil Rajput , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 86 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Jariya, District Hamirpur.

¶10

Today despite the matter being taken up in the revised list, there is no representation from the side of the applicant to press this bail application.

¶11

The incident is of the year 2025. It appears that learned counsel for the applicant has lost interest in the matter.

¶12

In view of the above, the present bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶13

Later On

¶14

After this order was passed, Sri Sandeep Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicant appeared and makes a mention that he was busy in another Court and thus he could not appear before the Court and the order dismissing the bail application for want of prosecution be recalled and the matter be restored to its original number. He submits that he is ready to argue the matter. The order thus is recalled. The matter is restored to its original number.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has produced the certified copy of the statement of PW-1/Harnarayan the first informant today in Court which is taken on record.

¶16

BAIL No. 34687 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

¶19

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 20.05.2025 by Harnarayan against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that his daughter Rinki was married to Kapil the applicant around 18 months back in which he had spent Rs. 15 lakh as per his status and given dowry in marriage. Santosh the father of his son-in-law was demanding a four wheeler in dowry and accused due to non fulfillment of the same used to assault and torture her. His daughter on many times told him on phone on which he stated that whenever he gets a purchaser he would sell his land and give the vehicle. On 04.04.2025 his daughter called him on phone and said that if he does not give the vehicle by tomorrow they would murder her. In the night at about 11:00 pm Pappu the chacha of Kapil came to his house and told him that Rinki is unwell and he may come to the hospital immediately. He then with him came to Rath CHC where he found his daughter to be dead. Blood was coming out from her eyes and there were injuries on her legs and neck. When he asked Santosh about it then he did not answer about it and ran away. Report be lodged and action be taken.

¶20

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 during investigation, the first informant after being interrogated was put certain questions by the Investigating Officer who stated that the marriage of Rinki with Kpail was a love marriage after which a contract was signed between them and the marriage was solemnized in a temple. There was no dowry given since marriage was a love marriage. It is submitted that the story regarding demand of dowry is totally false, concocted and without any credible evidence. While placing the statement of the first informant recorded before the trial court as PW-1 it is submitted that the said witness has been declared hostile by the trial court. It is submitted that thus there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.05.2025.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that there are allegations of demand of dowry in the FIR. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received five other injuries apart from a ligature mark on her body. The same reads as under:

¶22

"1- Blue coloured contusion present around right side of eye with size 3x2cm.

¶23

2- Conjunctival haemorrhage present over around right side of eye.

¶24

BAIL No. 34687 of 2025

¶25

¶26

3- Blue coloured contusion present over both side of angle of mouth near chin with size respectively 4x1cm, 3x1cm.

¶27

4- Multiple reddish blue coloured abraded contusions present around & front of neck with size respectively 1x0.5cm,0.5x0.5cm,2x1cm.

¶28

5- Multiple blue coloured contusions present over right forearm & right shoulder with size 1x1cm,2x0.5cm,3x1cm.

¶29

6- Ligature mark - Reddish brown coloured l/m in the form of pressure abrasion with the base of l/m is soft and reddish present all around neck measuring 28cm in length with varying width from min 0.5 to 1cm lying below the level of thyroid cartilage going transverse, continuos & underlying subcutaneous tissue is ecchymosed."

¶30

The cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation and viscera was preserved for the chemical analysis. It is submitted that although the cause of death was conclusive looking to the ligature mark on her body. The deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

¶31

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 within seven years of marriage. The death is unnatural. There are allegations of demand of dowry in the FIR against the applicant. The deceased was found to have received five other injuries apart from the ligature mark on her body and the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation and viscera was preserved for the chemical analysis. Although the cause of death was conclusive looking to the ligature mark on her body. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

¶32

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶33

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶34

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶36

December 18, 2025 M. ARIF

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kapil Rajput v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Rajput 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Alias Appa vs State of U.P.

Khem Singh @ Kaalu vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Gautam vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh vs State of U.P.

Sandeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others