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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2024 under Sections 80(2) and 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, PS Line Bazar, District Jaunpur. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the post mortem report and the fact that the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, the Court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant; the bail application was found devoid of merits and rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The case pending before the trial court is directed to be decided expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in 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.

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), Order dated 4.8.2025 (2025:AHC:130473), rejected the bail application of Mukesh Chauhan in Case Crime No. 424 of 2024, under Sections 80(2) and 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur. Considering the post mortem report (death due to haemorrhage shock and coma resulting from ante mortem blunt trauma in abdomen, one fractured rib and ruptured spleen) and that the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, the Court held it was not a fit case for grant of bail. The trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously in view of the principles laid down in 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; the observations were expressly limited to the bail application and stated to have no bearing on the merits during trial.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130473

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5666 of 2025

Applicant :- Mukesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant as per Hindu rites in the year 2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of a golden chain as dowry and thereby led her to death on 24.08.2024 at about 7 p.m.

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

Learned counsel has next stated that the cause of death was found to be haemorrhage shock and coma as a result of ante mortem blunt trauma in abdomen. One rib was found fractured and her spleen was found ruptured. It is next stated that the deceased had fallen down in the house as such had sustained the said injury. It is not a case of applicant having committed the said offence, as such the applicant is entitled for bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and one rib was found fractured and her spleen was found ruptured and onus lies on him to explain the

cause of death.

This Court had called for status of trial on 10.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 23.07.2025 indicates that charge against the applicant has been framed on 03.03.2025 and no witness has been examined to date.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the post mortem report and the deceased having expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

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.

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.

Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Sumit S

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

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