Allowed

Shashi Kapoor v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025BAIL/37922/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought bail during trial in a dowry death case. Post mortem showed single ligature mark and asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; no dowry complaint was made at inquest; FIR was lodged after six days. Court found no likelihood of evidence tampering and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, harassment, delay and misuse of liberty.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37922 of 2025

¶3

Shashi Kapoor

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Yakub Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Shashi Kapoor, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 185 of 2025, under Section(s) 80(2), 85, 352, 351(3) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar.

¶10

The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged by Ramkishore against the applicant, Sangeeta Devi and Brijesh alleging therein that Sangeeta his daughter was married with the Shashi Kapoor, around 4 years back in a court marriage in which there was no demand of dowry but after one year of marriage, the accused persons started demanding dowry and used to torture his daughter. He used to fulfill their demands slowly as per available resources. Around six months back the accused persons demanded a two wheeler and rupees one lakh cash as dowry from her. They used to torture and abused her and threatened her that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled they would murder her. On 19.5.2025 he received a phone call by her by stating that the accused persons would murder her and he may come with money. Later on at about 03:00 a.m. on 20.5.2025 he received a phone call that his daughter has died. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

BAIL No. 37922 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant although is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is which is also suggestive from the post mortem examination report which shows one ligature mark present on the body of the deceased without any other bodily injury and the doctor conducting post mortem examination has opined the death due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is further submitted that co-accused Sarita Devi (Sangeeta Devi) and Brijesh have been granted bail by other Benches of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 and 20.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31370 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28538 of 2025 respectively, copies of said orders have been annexed as annexure no. 10 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted in which the first informant was a witness to it and the applicant was also a witness to it, but at that point of time there was no objection or complaint raised by the complainant/informant regarding any such demand of dowry or torture but the opinion was that the deceased was committed suicide and died. It is submitted that subsequently after six days of the incident the present F.I.R. has been lodged. It is submitted that delay in lodging of the F.I.R. of six days is unexplained. It is submitted that as per the F.I.R. itself the marriage was a court marriage and at that point of time there was no demand of dowry but the allegations regarding demand of dowry is at the subsequent stage which is false with malafide intentions. It is submitted while placing para-15 and annexure no.9 of the affidavit that charge sheet dated 12.8.2025 in the matter has been submitted against the applicant. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.5.2025.

¶14

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is husband of the deceased. It is submitted that there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years and the death is unnatural. It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant although is husband of the deceased

¶16

BAIL No. 37922 of 2025

¶17

¶18

but as per the post mortem report except single ligature mark no other bodily injury was found and cause of death has been opined as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The applicant and the first informant who is father of the deceased were the witnesses of the inquest but the first informant at that point of time did not make any objection or complaint regarding any such demand of dowry and torture. The F.I.R. has been lodged after six days of delay for which there is no plausible explanation. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Let the applicant- Shashi Kapoor, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶24

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS,

¶25

BAIL No. 37922 of 2025

¶26

¶27

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶29

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶30

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶31

The bail application is allowed.

¶32

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

(Samit Gopal,J.)

October 31, 2025

Naresh

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

Shashi Kapoor v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Kapoor v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Yadav vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Jasoda vs State of U.P.

Ramkesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Sansari vs State of U.P.