Sanjay Anuragi Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36294 of 2025

Sanjay Anuragi

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.		..	...Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Dinesh Kumar Prajapati	Maurya,	Ram Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	G.A.
Court No.- 66

¶5

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I 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- Sanjay Anuragi , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 121 of 2025, under Section 85, 80(2) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 24.04.2025 by Chiddu against the applicant and 02 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Anjana was solemnized with the applicant on 13.12.2024. After marriage the deceased was being tortured and harassed by the accused persons and there was demand of a motorcycle and Rs. 2 lakhs as dowry. On 18.04.2025 he received an information at about 12 pm that his daughter has been stated to go out of the house. When he reached there he found the accused persons have murdered his daughter by hanging. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing paragraph 19 of the

¶11

BAIL No. 36294 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was not happy with the marriage solemnized by her parents with the applicant and thus she committed suicide. It is submitted that suicide is also suggestive from the postmortem examination wherein the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 and is in jail since 29.04.2025.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within four months of marriage in her matrimonial house. The applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations of demand of dowry. The death is unnatural. It is submitted that in so far as the discharge of burden by the applicant is concerned, the same is totally false and without any substance. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be rejected.

¶15

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within four months of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. There is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and other co-accused persons. No ground for bail is made out.

¶16