HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 934 of 2024 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Ms. Shilpy Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akash Pundir, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Sonu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 179 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 16.07.2023 by Sundar Pal against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that his daughter Sapna was married to Sonu the applicant around three years back. The accused persons were demanding Rs. 5 lakh cash and a car in dowry which was refused by Sapna after which the accused persons used to assault her and ill treat her. She many times told the informant about it after which she was consoled and sent back. She was sent to her maternal house twice but after discussion she was taken back. On 16.07.2023 at about 02:40 pm he received an information that Sapna is ill on which the informant and his family members went there and came to know that in the night she has been done death. Report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sachin Malik, Shilpy Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akash Pundir, G.A., Pawan Singh Pundir Sonu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing para 19 and 20 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant and the deceased had given Rs. 2 lakh to the informant for his dairy milk business and the same was not returned back on demand by the deceased due to which she took this step. It is stated further that the relationship between the deceased and her family members were strained as the informant did not return the taken money and she was forced to live in her maternal house which was refused by the accused, therefore, she committed suicide. It is further submitted while placing para 16 of the affidavit that the marriage between the deceased and the applicant were solemnized during Covid-19 and thus there was no occasion to give any dowry or gifts. It is further submitted that Brahmpal the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail, para 30 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that the deceased was found hanging in a room and the first informant and police when reached there found the room to be locked from inside and thus the present case appears to be a case of suicide which is also consistent with the postmortem examination report wherein she found to have received a single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.07.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died within three years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. Further in so far as the room where the incident had taken place is concerned, the statement of the first informant clearly states that the same had an opening aperture of the room which was sufficient for a man to enter inside and thus it cannot be said except for the said door there was no other opening or aperture in the room. It is submitted that the aperture was temporarily closed and shut by a block. It is submitted further that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. Further it is submitted that in so far as the defence of the applicant as is being taken and argued while placing para 19 and 20 of the affidavit are concerned, the same is without any credible evidence and as a matter of fact no such money was taken by the informant from the deceased or her husband. It is submitted that as such the bail be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and BAIL No. 934 of 2024 2 perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within three years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. The room of the place of occurrence had opening in it which was covered by block which was sufficient for entry of a man. The discharge of burden as pleaded and argued as per para 19 and 20 of the affidavit does not transpire confidence at all. No ground for bail is made out. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail. 8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. October 13, 2025 M. ARIF BAIL No. 934 of 2024 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad