Deepak @ Kanja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

By means of this application preferred under Section 483 BNSS, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0588/2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. (old Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC) & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Motipur, District Bahraich is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶11

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 18.12.2025 has been lodged under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS, 2023 (old Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against five named accused persons including the present applicant (the husband of the deceased) alleging therein that the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized in the month of Jyestha (10.06.2025) with the applicant. For three months, the husband of his sister fulfilled his duties as husband but after three months, he demanded dowry on the insistence of his other family members i.e. mother in law and three sisters. The same was fulfilled then again he asked for Rs. 1,00,000/- and threatened that if the same would not be paid, the sister of the informant will be killed. On 16.12.2025, his daughter was badly beaten by them and they killed her.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR was lodged with a delay of two days. The applicant has falsely been implicated along with other family members in the present case by making general and omnibus allegations.

¶13

It is further submitted that on 16.12.2025, the father of the deceased had given a report to the Police mentioning therein that his daughter has committed suicide on 16.12.2025 by hanging herself from the tree in the agricultural field. The father of the deceased was present at the time of panchnama but neither in his application/report dated 16.12.2025 nor at the time of recording of the statement during panchnama, he had made any

¶14

BAIL No. 2903 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

allegation of dowry demand or harassment by the applicant and his family members. The panchanama has been annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the paper book, to which the father of the deceased is also a signatory.

¶17

It is further submitted that the Police after the investigation has filed charge sheet only against the applicant dropping the names of other four named accused persons.

¶18

It is further submitted that the deceased has committed suicide which could be gathered from the post mortem report wherein the autopsy surgeon has opined cause of death is 'asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging'.

¶19

It is further submitted that the deceased had hanged herself from a tree in an agricultural field not at the house/home of the applicant and there is no injury found on the body of the deceased, so the allegation of beating the sister of the informant on 16.12.2025 and thereafter killed her, does not corroborate with the post mortem report. It is a case of suicide.

¶20

At this juncture, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) INSC 214 wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide.

¶21

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and she is in jail since 27.12.2025.

¶22

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received opposes the prayer for bail but unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant factually as well as on the basis of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶23

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it is found that the FIR has been lodged by the brother of the deceased with a delay of two days whereas the father of the deceased on the very same day of incident, has reported to the Police and given his statement at the time of panchnama and neither in the report nor in the statement, he had made any allegation of dowry demand against the applicant and his family members; the allegations made in the FIR appears to be general and omnibus in nature; there was no injury found on the body of the deceased; as per the medical report cause of death shown is Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging, prima-facie, it does not corroborate with story in the FIR and the statement of informant; as per the settled law in the case of Mangat Ram (supra) wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide; thus, prima-facie, it is found that it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

BAIL No. 2903 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶27

Let the applicant- Deepak @ Kanja be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶29

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶30

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶31

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶32

(v) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶33

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶34

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶35

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶36

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶37

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶38

April 23, 2026 Nitesh

¶39

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶40

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

Deepak @ Kanja v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Kanja v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haseeb and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Vijay Shankar Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pramod Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Aman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arpit Dubey @ Ankit vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Salma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.