Dismissed¶22

Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025BAIL/40461/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Section 483 BNSS bail application; husband of deceased; unnatural death within three months of marriage; dowry demand Rs. 2 lakh; Sections 85, 80(2) BNS; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Case Crime No. 452 of 2025; P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firozabad; parity with co-accused family members distinguished; suicide/transcript plea; charge-sheet against husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law; Allahabad High Court; Samit Gopal, J.; November 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is the husband of the deceased, who died an unnatural death within three months of marriage in her matrimonial house, with allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and torture against the applicant and other co-accused. ¶21

Vipin Kumar vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40461 of 2025

Vipin Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow

¶6

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 66

¶8

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶9

1. List revised.

¶10

Heard Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶11

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Vipin Kumar , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 452 of 2025, under Section 85, 80(2) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

¶12

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 15.08.2025 by Dinesh Kumar against the applicant and 06 other persons alleging therein that his daughter Sapna was married to Vipin Kumar (the applicant) on 17.05.2025 for which he had given Rs. 5 lakh cash, a bike and household articles. The marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites & customs. After marriage the attitude of her in-laws were not good towards her. Her husband and father-inlaw demanded Rs. 2 lakh as additional dowry which was told by his daughter to him and they stated that if money is no given then they would murder her but as the financial condition of the house was not good he could not give it. On 14.08.2025 in the night the accused together as their demand of Rs. 2 lakh could not be fulfilled murdered his daughter. In the morning when he went there he found his

¶13

BAIL No. 40461 of 2025

¶14

¶15

daughter to be lying on the floor and her in-laws were absconded. On information police reached there and sent the body for postmortem. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted although the applicant 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 suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, a single ligature mark was found on her body and an abrasion but the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is submitted that the abrasion was on the right angle of mouth which did not contribute to her death. While placing paragraph 10 of the affidavit it is submitted that before committing suicide Sapna made a phone call to her mother and brother and the same was recorded in the mobile phone in which she had made no allegations against her in-laws and as said that no one committed any cruelty on her and she was disturbed and was committing suicide, Annexure-6 being the alleged transcript of the talks has been placed before the Court. While placing paragraph 12 of the affidavit it is submitted from the conversation between the deceased and her mother & brother it is clear that there is no fault of her husband and she was not happy with her marriage and thus out of frustration she committed suicide. It is submitted that co-accused Smt. Munni Devi the mother-in-law and Harnam Singh the father-inlaw of the deceased been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 36365 of 2025 and 36373 of 2025, the copy of the said orders are annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 11 of the affidavit that four other co-accused namely Pankaj Kumar, Pintu, Ranjana and Priyanka have been exonerated during investigatin and charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant, Harnam Singh and Smt. Munni Devi. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 16 and is in jail since 28.08.2025.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within three months of marriage in her matrimonial house and there are allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and torture by the

¶18

BAIL No. 40461 of 2025

¶19

¶20

applicant and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that coaccused who have been granted bail are the family members of the applicant and since the applicant is the husband of the deceased, the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of the co-accused. The contents of paragraph 10 of the affidavit regarding transcript of the talks between the deceased and her mother & brother as alleged is denied in the instructions received from the concerned police station. It is submitted that the bail application of the applicant thus be rejected.

¶21

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died an unnatural death within three months of marriage in her matrimonial house. There is allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and torture by the applicant and other co-accused persons. Co-accused who have been granted bail are the family members of the applicant and thus their cases are distinguishable with that of the applicant since he is the husband of the deceased.

¶22

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶23

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

¶24

November 18, 2025 AS Rathore

¶25

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil vs State of U.P.

Badri vs State of U.P.

Akash vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ritik Rawat and Another vs State of U.P.