Mohd. Danish Kaleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

By means of this application preferred under Section 483 BNSS, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 477/2025, under Sections 80(2) & 85 of B.N.S. (old Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC) & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mallawan, District Hardoi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶12

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 12.12.2025 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 three years ago, the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with the applicant. On 11.12.2025, the informant received a phone call from his sister and she told him that she was badly beaten by all the named accused persons and they will kill her and when he reached there, he found his sister was killed by them.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated along with other family members in the present case by making general and omnibus allegations.

¶14

It is further submitted that the Police after investigation has filed chargesheet only against the applicant (the husband of the deceased) dropping the names of other four named accused persons.

¶15

It is further submitted that as per the story in the FIR and the statements of the informant recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS, he had come with a case that his sister informed him that she was beaten badly whereas there is no injury found on the body of the deceased.

¶16

It is further submitted that the deceased had committed suicide which could

¶17

BAIL No. 3011 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

be gathered from the post mortem report wherein the autopsy surgeon has opined cause of death as 'asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging'. 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

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.04.2023 passed in Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh vs. State of Uttrakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the husband and held that the conviction under Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201 IPC could not be sustained in the absence of evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before the death.

¶22

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 17.12.2025, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail as his two small children need him at this hour.

¶23

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received opposes the prayer for bail but is 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.

¶24

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 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 and in the case of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh (supra) , wherein it has been held that the conviction under Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201 IPC could not be sustained in the absence of evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before the death; thus, prima-facie, it is found that it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant- Mohd. Danish Kaleem 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:-

¶27

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

¶28

BAIL No. 3011 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

April 27, 2026

¶40

Nitesh

¶41

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶42

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

Mohd. Danish Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Danish Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

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

Tazkeer Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mr. X Accused/ Revisionist Case Crime No. 93 of 2025 P.S. N.M.P.T. Distt. Shravasti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shadab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

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