HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31820 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned Advocate, has put in appearance and filed his power on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record. 2-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel for the first informant. 3-By means of this bail application, applicant Sachin, who is involved in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85 BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Phase-3 Noida, district Gautam Buddha Nagar, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 4-As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is brother of the deceased Soni, got an F.I.R. lodged on 16.02.2025 against the applicant, who is husabnd of the deceased, and his younger brother stating inter alia that marriage of his sister was solemnized with the applicant four years back but the applicant used to taunt her for dowry. On 16.02.2025, when he went to meet his sister at her matrimonial home, he saw that door was locked from outside. When he broke the lock and looked inside, her sister was lying dead. 5-The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sachin .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant has been shown as husband of the deceased on the basis of a certificate of registration of court marriage whereas correct fact is that marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 16.12.2020 with applicant's elder brother, namely, Sonu Saini. Thereafter, the deceased, without taking divorce from the applicant's elder brother, started living with the applicant in a live-in relationship. At the time of incident, the applicant was not present at the spot. The marriage registration certificate, on the basis of which, it is said that the applicant is husband of the deceased, has not been verified by the Investigating Officer, hence no reliance can be placed upon the said document. Apart from the said submission, it is also submitted that in the F.I.R., it is not mentioned that what was the demand from the side of the applicant in dowry. In the post mortem report, no injury was found on the body of the deceased, hence the applicant, who does not have any criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 09.06.2025, may be enlarged on bail. 6-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant is husband of the deceased and both were living on rent in the house of Suresh Kumar Goud. During investigation, statement of owner of the house Suresh Kumar Goud was also recorded, in which it is stated inter alia that the applicant Sachin and the deceased Soni were living in his house on rent and on the day of incident, he had gone somewhere-else after putting lock on his rented accommodation. When smell started coming out from the said accommodation, then the lock was got broken and it was found that dead body of the deceased is lying inside the room. It is also pointed out that as per the post mortem report, the cause of the death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. It is further pointed out that during investigation, Investigating Officer has also collected and verified the marriage registration certificate dated 18.08.2021 of the applicant and deceased Soni. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 7-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the BAIL No. 31820 of 2025 2 matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the deceased was living with the applicant in a rented accommodation of Suresh Kumar Goud and dead body of the deceased was found inside the room which was locked by the applicant from outside. The cause of death of the deceased is strangulation. The offence is heinous in nature. Presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is also attracted in the present case. 8-Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial Court, therefore, this Court is not recording any finding about the disputed question of fact as to whether the applicant was the husband of the deceased or not, which is a matter of evidence and can be adjudicated at the appropriate stage after leading evidence by the parties concerned. 9-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, cause of death and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 10-Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. 11-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 17, 2025 Shubham BAIL No. 31820 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad