Manish Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15371 of 2026

Manish

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pankaj Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.339 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 352 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

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

¶10

He further argued, actually after marriage deceased did not perform her matrimonial duties and her disputes very often arose with the applicant and his family members and due to this reason there was matrimonial discord and due to matrimonial discord she consumed poisonous substance.

¶11

He next submits, after the unfortunate incident of consumption of poisonous substance, applicant immediately rushed the deceased to the hospital but after three days, unfortunately, she died.

¶12

He next submits, the fact that applicant admitted the deceased in the hospital is even evident from the information sent by hospital to the police station after the death of the deceased which has been annexed at page 21 of the paper book.

¶13

He further argued, the fact that there were matrimonial discord due to the reason that deceased did not perform her matrimonial duties is even evident from the statements of prosecution witnesses Arti and Virendra recorded during investigation, which have been annexed along with the instant bail application.

¶14

BAIL No. 15371 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

He further argued, even as per the viscera report which is now on record deceased died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide, therefore, prima facie it appears to be a case of suicidal death.

¶17

He further argued, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 17.07.2025 i.e. for almost last ten months.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

However, applicant is husband of deceased and his wife died within 3- 1/2 year of her marriage under abnormal circumstances due to consumption of aluminium phosphide and there is also allegation of torture for demand of Rs. 15 lac but considering the fact that the deceased died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide possibility of suicide committed by her at this stage cannot be ruled out.

¶21

Further, as per applicant it is not a case of dowry death and as deceased did not perform her matrimonial duties, therefore, dispute arose between husband and wife and only due to this reason she consumed poisonous substance and died. The defence taken by the applicant also finds support from the statements of independent witnesses recorded during investigation in which they categorically stated that there was matrimonial discord due to reason that deceased could not perform her matrimonial duties. In view of this Court if either husband or his family members have come with probable defence, then in case of dowry death where prima facie it appears to be a case of suicide, their bail application should not be withhold.

¶22

Further, even record suggests immediately after the alleged incident of consumption of poisonous substance applicant himself admitted the deceased in the hospital where, unfortunately, she died and this fact even shows the bona fide on the part of the applicant.

¶23

Further, applicant is not having any other criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 17.7.2025 i.e. for last for almost ten months.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

BAIL No. 15371 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

Let the applicant - Manish 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:-

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Kumar Manish

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Rajendra Singh Gurjar Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hareeshchandra Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Angad Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sameena vs State of U.P.