Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 B.N.S.S. should be granted to applicant Dharmendra Yadav in FIR/Case Crime No. 25 of 2025 (P.S. Goshaiganj, District Ayodhya). +1 more

Court's answer

From the statements of complainant Arjun Kumar Yadav and Ram Sudin, the court recorded that one day prior to the victim's death, i.e., on 16.2.2025, the applicant demanded dowry and told the deceased that unless the demand was met, his family members would not keep her at their home.

Ratio / Principle

Ram Sudin's statement further showed that his grandson Rohit Yadav transferred Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 99,999/- and Rs. 10,000/- from his Punjab National Bank and Bank of Baroda accounts to the applicant's account on 18.11.2024 and 19.11.2024 respectively.

Key takeaways

Prima facie there was a demand of dowry; the prosecution witnesses' statements showed the victim was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry one day before her death; accordingly, prima facie complicity of the applicant was held to be evident.ratio¶14
In view of the above, no ground for grant of bail was found and the bail application was rejected; the claim of parity with the bailed-out co-accused did not prevail against the opposing contention that the applicant's role was distinct.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 B.N.S.S. (CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5714 of 2025) by Dharmendra Yadav in FIR/Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 of B.N.S. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Goshaiganj, District Ayodhya, decided by Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench) on 6.8.2025. Perusing the statements of complainant Arjun Kumar Yadav and Ram Sudin, the court found a dowry demand by the applicant on 16.2.2025, one day prior to the victim's death, and transfers of Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 99,999/- and Rs. 10,000/- from Rohit Yadav's Punjab National Bank and Bank of Baroda accounts to the applicant's account on 18.11.2024 and 19.11.2024. The applicant's claim of parity with co-accused Dhirendra Yadav and Smt. Vimla Devi (already granted bail by the Sessions Judge) was opposed on the ground that his role was distinct. Holding prima facie dowry demand, cruelty relating to dowry one day before death, and evident prima facie complicity, the court rejected the bail application.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45843

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5714 of 2025

Applicant :- Dharmendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Dharmendra Yadav seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 of B.N.S. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Goshaiganj, District Ayodhya.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the coaccused Dhirendra Yadav and Smt. Vimla Devi have been granted bail by the Sessions Judge. The role of the applicant is similar to that of the said co-accused. Hence, he claims parity.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty by the present applicant relating to demand of dowry. Thus, the role of the applicant is distinct from that of the co-accused persons who have been granted bail.

Perused the record.

A perusal of the statement of the complainant Arjun Kumar Yadav and Ram Sudin shows that one day prior to the death of the victim i.e., on 16.2.2025, there was a demand of dowry by the present applicant and the deceased was told by the applicant that unless the demand of dowry is met, his family members would not keep her at their home. The statement of Ram Sudin further shows that the grandson of Ram Sudin namely, Rohit Yadav has transferred an amount of Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 99,999/- and Rs. 10,000/- from his Punjab National Bank account and Bank of Baroda account to the

account of the present applicant on 18.11.2024 and 19.11.2024 respectively.

Prima facie, there is a demand of dowry. It is also evident from the statement of the prosecution witnesses that one day before the death of the victim, she was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry. Thus, prima facie complicity of the applicant is evident.

In view of the above, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Shravan

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench