[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Arif vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:83665
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8597 of 2026
Arif
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rajesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Deoraniya, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. 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.
5. He further submitted that actually wife of the applicant i.e. deceased sustained burn injuries accidentally while she was cooking food but after her death on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith others.
6. He further submitted that however, there are two dying declarations of the deceased on record. One recorded by I.O. and another one recorded by learned magistrate and however in both the dying declarations, she stated that applicant alongwith co-accused Afsana i.e. her jethani burnt her but there are material inconsistency in both the dying declaration.
7. He further submitted that even as per dying declaration of the deceased applicant by pouring petrol burnt her alongwith co-accused Afsana but from the medical report of the deceased it could not be reflected that she sustained burn injuries due to pouring of petrol and this fact also shows that her dying declaration is not reliable.
8. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 4.11.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date only seven witnesses could be examined out of 27 witnesses of the charge sheet and therefore, there is no hope of early disposal.
9. He further submitted that applicant is having no other criminal history.
10. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail.
11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within 7 years of her marriage due to burn injuries and even in both the declarations deceased stated that applicant alongwith co-accused Afsana burnt her and there are no material and major contradictions in both the dying declarations of the deceased.
12. He further submitted that merely on the basis of the medical report of the deceased it cannot be said that dying declarations of the deceased are false.
13. He further pointed out that even bail application of co-accused Afsana, Jethani of the deceased has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25922 of 2024 after considering the dying declarations of the deceased.
14. He further submitted that however, in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than two years but considering the nature of allegations levelled against him and the fact that he is husband of the deceased merely on this ground, it is not proper to release him on bail.
15. He further submitted that therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case instant bail application should be dismissed.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
17. Applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within three years of her marriage due to burn injuries and there is also allegation of torture for demand of dowry.
18. Further, even it reflects, there are two dying declarations of the deceased on record, one recorded by I.O. and another by learned Magistrate and in both the dying declarations deceased stated that applicant and co-accused Afsana i.e. her jethani burnt her and except minor contradictions in both the dying declarations in view of this Court there are no major contradictions.
19. Further, however as per learned counsel for the applicant, medical report of the deceased belies the dying declaration of the deceased but in view of this Court merely on the basis of medical report at this stage dying declaration of the deceased cannot be disbelieved.
20. Further, even bail application of co-accused Afsana, jethani of the deceased has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the dying declarations of the deceased.
21. Further, however, applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than two years and till date out of 27 witnesses, only 7 could be examined but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that considering the facts of the case including the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased merely on this ground it is not proper to release the applicant on bail. In view of this Court there must be some balance between period of incarceration suffered by an accused, nature of allegations made against him and punishment provided for the alleged offences.
22. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
23. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
24. However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost 30 months trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with law if there is no legal impediment preferably within seven months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
25. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned District Judge within 48 hours for necessary compliance.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
April 16, 2026
Ankita
