Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025BAIL/634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by a husband accused under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act after his wife's death by hanging. Postmortem showed no injury beyond ligature mark and no evidence of dowry harassment soon before death; bail allowed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences and not tamper with evidence.

Arvind vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 634 of 2025

Arvind

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 12

¶9

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.335 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi.

¶12

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant in the year 2021. Subsequently, on account of non-payment of dowry, she was killed. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, was ante mortem hanging. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The father-in-law and the mother-in-law have been enlarged on bail.

¶13

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶14

5. Considering the postmortem report indicating no injury except for ligature mark and there being nothing against the applicant to suggest that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to any physical or mental harassment in relation to any demand of dowry coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 28.10.2024, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

6. Let the applicant Arvind be released on bail in the abovesaid first

¶16

BAIL No. 634 of 2025

¶17

¶18

information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶19

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶20

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶21

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶23

October 13, 2025

¶24

akverma

¶25

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

Arvind v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Kritma Gupta and Another Vs Smt. Vijaya Gupta and Ors.

Soorsati Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Food and Civil Suply),Lko. and 4 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Thru. Senior Divisional Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Auth. Officer and 2 Others

Harsh Verdhan and Another Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and 5 Others

Mrs. Mahmad Farhana and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 6 Others