Dismissed¶¶15

Suraj Kannaujiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025BAIL/11792/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected under S.483 B.N.S.S. 2023; husband accused in dowry death case (S.304-B IPC, S.498-A IPC, S.3/4 D.P. Act); parity plea with co-accused father-in-law Munna Lal and mother-in-law Usha Devi (already granted bail) rejected as case distinguishable; ante-mortem hanging, single ligature mark, asphyxia; alleged dowry demand Rs.2 lakh; Case Crime No.193 of 2023, PS Mehandawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar; applicant in jail since 30.5.2023; decided 14.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:79175.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is the husband of the deceased; there is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons, and the deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. ¶¶14

Suraj Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Suraj Kannaujiya, husband of the deceased, should be enlarged on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.193 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶¶8

Court's answer

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused father-in-law and mother-in-law who were granted bail; parity with those bail orders does not assist the applicant.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

The Court did not find it a fit case for bail and rejected the bail application.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.; order dated 14.5.2025) rejected the bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 filed by Suraj Kannaujiya, husband of the deceased, arraigned in Case Crime No.193 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mehandawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar. The FIR, lodged on 30.5.2023 by Smt. Saroj, alleged a dowry demand of Rs.2 lakh along with torture and harassment, and the unnatural death of her daughter Anuradha within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house; the State relied on the postmortem examination reportedly showing a single ligature mark and death by asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Although co-accused Munna Lal (father-in-law) and Usha Devi (mother-in-law) had been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench vide orders dated 26.9.2023 and 7.1.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41844 of 2023 and 52318 of 2023, the Court held the applicant's case distinguishable as he is the husband of the deceased, found it not a fit case for bail and rejected the application. The applicant, stated to have no criminal history, is in jail since 30.5.2023.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79175

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11792 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Kannaujiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gagan Pratap Singh,Nripendra Pratap Singh,Purnima Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Gagan Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant-Suraj Kannaujiya, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.193 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mehandawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State states that he has received instructions in the matter for which he had prayed and was granted time on 10.4.2025.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 30.5.2023 by Smt. Saroj against the applicant and four other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Anuradha was solemnized with Suraj, (the applicant) on 22.4.2022. After marriage the accused persons used to torture & trouble her for dowry. There was demand of Rs.2 lakh as dowry by the accused persons and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the accused persons on 25.5.2025 have murdered her. He was given an information after which he along with his relatives went there and found his daughter to be dead. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is not involved in the matter. It is submitted that the allegations as

¶12

levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons are general and omnibus in nature. It is argued that co-accused Munna Lal (father-in-law) and Usha Devi (mother-in-law) have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 26.9.2023 and 7.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41844 of 2023 and 52318 of 2023, the copies of the said orders is annexed as Annexure no.15 to the affidavit in support of bail application. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 40 and is in jail since 30.5.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The case of the co-accused persons who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased are distinguishable with the case of the applicant. As per postmortem examination report, the deceased was found to have received single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused persons who have been granted bail as they are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶17

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Kannaujiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kannaujiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Absar Ahmad vs State of U.P.

Deepak vs State of U.P.

Pappu vs State of U.P.

Prakash Raikwar vs State of U.P.

Rahul Alias Appa vs State of U.P.

Smt. Bharti Devi vs State of U.P.