Sonu vs State of U.P.

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. 65 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Titawi, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 24.03.2025 by Smt. Sarita against the applicant and 04 other persons alleging therein that her daughter Neha @ Naina was married around 06 years back with the applicant. The accused persons used to trouble and torture her for dowry. Her daughter told her about it on phone. She along with her husband many times came to her matrimonial house and consoled the accused persons and told them that she cannot give the dowry. On 23/24.03.2025 in the night the accused persons murdered her daughter. She was assaulted with lathi also. She was informed about the death of her daughter by her second son-in-law.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely

¶12

BAIL No. 34501 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased and the applicant were married around 06 years back and from the wedlock there were two children which would go to show that they were leading a happy married life. It is submitted that in so far as the allegation of demand of additional dowry is concerned, the same is totally vague in as much as in the first information report and in two statements of the first informant recorded during investigation there is no disclosure whatsoever of the actual demand of dowry. It is submitted that only a vague version has been stated that there is an additional demand of dowry. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is also suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, she was found to have received a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Learned counsel while placing paragraph 07 of the affidavit submitted that the deceased was a very sensitive lady and since there were hot talks between her and the applicant she committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan. It is submitted that co-accused Karnveer the father-in-law and Smt. Brijesh @ Mithilesh the mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.07.2025 and 18.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22216 of 2025 and 26258 of 2025, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.03.2025.

¶15

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage. There are allegations of demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that in the first information report and in the two statements of the first informant there is no disclosure of the fact as to what was the actual demand of dowry.

¶16

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the marriage of the applicant and the deceased was solemnized around 06 years back. They had two children from the said wedlock. The deceased was not found to have received any bodily injury except for a ligature mark on her body. The

¶17

BAIL No. 34501 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Coaccused Karnveer the father-in-law and Smt. Brijesh @ Mithilesh the mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The first information report and the two statements of the first informant does not state as to what was the actual demand of dowry by the applicant and other accused persons.

¶20

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Let the applicant- Sonu , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and

¶27

BAIL No. 34501 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

(3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

¶30

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶31

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶32

The bail application is allowed .

¶33

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

¶34

October 7, 2025 AS Rathore

¶35

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Rakesh Kumar Alias Sanjeev vs State of U.P.

Hariom Singh vs State of U.P.

Raja Dashrath Sonker Alias Golu vs State of U.P. and Another

Khem Singh @ Kaalu vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Gautam vs State of U.P.

Lilawati Devi vs State of U.P.