HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37322 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Sriram Dhar Dubey learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant Sonu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 137 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sinduriya, District Maharajganj. 4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 25.06.2025 by Awadhesh against the applicant, Govind Nishad/husband and Rambha/mother-in-law of the deceased alleging therein that his daughter Poonam was solemnized with Govind on 01.10.2021. After marriage the accused persons due to less dowry used to torture and assault her. She has a daughter aged about two and half years. His daughter told him about it. Her husband and mother-in-law used to demand of Rs. 3 lakh and one gold chain as dowry and used to assault her. Many times panchayat was collected for resolving the said issue. On 25.06.2025 at about 02:00 pm he had talked with his daughter wherein she told that she is being assaulted by the accused persons. His daughter has been murdered by the accused persons. She was married around four years back. Report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the devar of the deceased. While placing para 6 of the affidavit it is submitted that the dispute was between the deceased and her husband of which the applicant was not aware and the applicant resides in other house built by his father and does not reside with co-accused Govind and the deceased. Further while placing para 9 of the affidavit it is submitted Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sriram Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) that on the day of the incident, the applicant was not at home and was out of home for searching a job on a daily basis. It is submitted that as such the case of the applicant stands distinguishable with that of co-accused Govind Nishad and Smt. Rambha. It is submitted that the inquest of the deceased shows only one injury on her body whereas postmortem report shows the other injuries. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 32 and is in jail since 09.07.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that although the applicant is the devar of the deceased but he is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. It is further submitted that the deceased was found to have received seven injuries on her person and the cause of death was opined by the doctor is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. It is further submitted that in so far as the injury no.7 received by the deceased is concerned, the same is contused traumatic swelling on the back of head and the doctor found haematoma present under scalp and as such it shows that she was assaulted. It is submitted that in the present case goes to show that the deceased was assaulted and then strangulated due to which she died. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. It is submitted that the bail be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicant is the devar of the deceased but he is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. The deceased Smt. Poonam was found to have received seven injuries on her body. They read as under: "1. Injury No.1, contusion 6cm x 3cm on left side neck. 2. Injury No.2, contusion 5cm x 4cm on right side neck. On cutting injury no.1 and 2 there is clotted blood present underneath. The colour is blackish, underneath vessels are contused and engorged, trachea deeply congested having bloody froth. 3. Injury No.3, abrasion 0.5cm x 0.5cm on chin. 4. Injury No.4, abraded contusion 21cm x 6cm on upper part of chest. 5. Injury No.5, contusion 5cm x 3cm on upper part of right shoulder. 6. Injury No.6, contused traumatic swelling 6cm x 3cm on right side head. 7. Injury No.7, contused traumatic swelling 5cm x 2.5cm on back of head, haematoma present under scalp." 8. The cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. The injury no.7 shows that even haematoma was present under scalp. In so far as the ground regarding the applicant residing at other house built by his father and further he was not present at the time of incident in the house are concerned, the same are matters of trial. The deceased died BAIL No. 37322 of 2025 2 unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. No ground for bail is made out. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 29, 2025 M. ARIF BAIL No. 37322 of 2025 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad