HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2783 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Saroj Rathore, with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / A.D.J.-IInd, Kanpur Dehat in S.S.T. No. 1227 / 2025 (Saroj Rathore Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 184 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 18.06.2025 by Harish Chandra Dhanuk against the appellant alleging therein that he was having a one sided love with his daughter and was forcing to marry her and used to trouble her. His daughter had made a complaint to him about it on which he went to the house of the appellant Saroj Rathore and made a complaint wherein he threatened him and stated that if he marries his daughter anywhere else he would not leave her alive. On being frightened he did not make a complaint to anyone but married his daughter on 26.05.2025 in Kannauj in a simple ceremony and sent her off in vidai. On 15.06.2025 when his daughter was called back in vidai on the same night Saroj Rathore somehow took her outside the house and after going to some distance hung her with a saree on a tree and murdered her and ran away. A report be lodged and action be taken. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Kumar Saroj, G.A., Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Sanjay Yadav Saroj Rathore .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing the inquest report it is submitted that an information was given to the police station that the deceased died by committing suicide and when the police reached there her parents were present there who gave an application to it. It is further submitted that there is no credible evidence against the appellant. It is submitted that the CDR of the deceased and the appellant was obtained during investigation in which there were various calls between both of them lasting for long durations which would show that the deceased was interested in the appellant and used to talk to him. It is submitted that charge-sheet dated 30.07.2025 has been submitted against the appellant and thus there are no chances of the appellant tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing postmortem report of the deceased submitted that the deceased was found to have received one injury as noted therein which reads as under:- "Injury No.1, Ligature mark in Form of pressure abrasion, Dry parchment like, Grooved and Furrowed, Encircling the neck horizontally with oblique upwards, Anteriorly, non contineous, With a gap of 5cm left side back of neck, width of ligature mark is 2cm, Neck Circumference 32cm, Distance 9cm above suprasternal notch, 5cm below chin, 4cm below angle of right mandible, 7cm below right mastoid bone, Just below angle of left mandible, 1 cm below left mastoid bone." The cause of death was opined as combined effects of asphyxia, venous congestion, consequent upon Antemortem Hanging and its related complications. It is submitted that the appellant be granted bail and the appeal be allowed. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.06.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail, submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the present appeal and submitted that the spot inspection of the place where the dead body was found as noted in the case-diary would go to show that before the incident there was struggle by the deceased as items of her body and even parts of clothes were found there which would go to show that a lot of struggle was there. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the first information report and he has a motive to commit the offence. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized at some other place in a simple ceremony and after vidai when she came back then in the same night she was murdered which was the threat extended by the appellant to the first informant which has been stated in the first information report itself. It is submitted that the CDR of the deceased would go to show that the he was present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. It is submitted that the injuries as received by the deceased and the cause of death would go to show that there was pressure CRLA No. 2783 of 2026 2 on her neck as pressure abrasion was found which then led to ligature mark which would go to show that she was murdered. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed and the prayer for bail be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out and is seen from the CDR collected during investigation. The appellant has a motive to commit the offence which is clearly mentioned in the first information report. It is further submitted while placing the inquest that there were certain other injury marks on the body of the deceased as noted in the inquest although the same were not found at the time of postmortem examination which would go to show that there was struggle at the time of incident. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the appellant is named in the first information report. He has a motive to commit the offence. The motive is clearly spelt out in the first information report. The deceased was married to someone else in a simple ceremony and when she came back for the first time in vidai to her maternal house she was taken away by the appellant on the same night and the present incident took place. Charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the appellant. The spot inspection and the postmortem report do not rule out the possibility of struggle by the deceased at the time of the incident. No ground for bail is made out. 9. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. April 29, 2026 AS Rathore CRLA No. 2783 of 2026 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad