Shani Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11851 of 2026

Shani Prajapati

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Srivastava Iii, Pratik Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 66

¶5

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80 of BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Airport, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegations he has been made accused in the present matter.

¶9

He further submitted that actually applicant developed bad habit of consuming liquor and therefore, very often serious dispute arose between husband and wife and in spite of insistence of his wife, he could not quit his bad habit of consuming liquor and therefore, within three years of her marriage deceased committed suicide by hanging.

¶10

He further submitted that even post mortem report of the deceased suggests that she died due to hanging.

¶11

He further submitted that the fact that husband is alcoholic is even evident from the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application.

¶12

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.9.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half

¶13

BAIL No. 11851 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

years.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within three years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for demand of Rs. Three lacs but post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to hanging, therefore, possibility of suicidal death at this stage cannot be ruled out and considering the statements of independent witnesses defence taken by applicant that as applicant was alcoholic, therefore, deceased committed suicide also cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶19

Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.9.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

¶20

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

¶21

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant- Shani Prajapati, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

BAIL No. 11851 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶30

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.

¶31

April 20, 2026 Ankita

¶32

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶33

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

Shani Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonu Mandal vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar @ Vinod ( Real Name Vinod Kumar) vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P.

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Pratap Singh Alias Ghuran Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sohail Alias Suhan Vs State of U.P.