Dismissed¶31

Saniya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2025BAIL/44859/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC; bail rejected; Saniya (nand/sister-in-law of deceased Ajra) refused bail under S.483 BNSS 2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Appn. 44859/2025, decided 18.12.2025 by Samit Gopal J.; Case Crime 13/2025, P.S. Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar; Sections 80(2) & 85 BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; dowry demand, torture and assault of pregnant wife, death of woman and foetus, haemorrhage shock due to sepsis; deceased's video implicating applicant with mother-in-law Sitara and devar Sultan; co-accused Iqbal granted bail (19779/2025), Sitara/Sultan bail rejected (22188/2025, 17387/2025); charge-sheet submitted; in jail since 12.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

None — the bail application of Saniya was rejected; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶31

Saniya vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the bail application of Saniya was rejected; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Saniya, implicated in Case Crime No. 13 of 2025 under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, is entitled to enlargement on bail during trial. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

After hearing counsel and perusing the record, the Court found the applicant named in the first information report with role assigned to her.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

There is a specific allegation against the applicant: the video of the deceased taken into custody during investigation states that the applicant, Sitara (mother-in-law) and Sultan (devar) assaulted the deceased.

¶30

Key takeaways

The deceased was found to have extensive internal injuries which were the cause of death; she was pregnant and the foetus also died; cause of death was opined as Haemorrhage Shock due to Sepsis.ratio¶27
In weighing the application, the Court noted that the bail of co-accused Sitara and Sultan had already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.ratio¶30
No ground for bail is made out; the Court does not find it a fit case for bail and rejects the bail application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Samit Gopal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44859 of 2025, decided 18.12.2025 — bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., 2023 moved by Saniya (stated by her counsel to be the still-unmarried sister-in-law/nand of the deceased) for release during trial in Case Crime No. 13 of 2025, P.S. Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar, registered on FIR dated 11.01.2025 lodged by Mujahid under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act — REJECTED. FIR alleges that Ajra, married to Nadim, and her co-sister Arsi were tortured and assaulted over dowry demands; the deceased and her unborn foetus died; postmortem recorded extensive ante-mortem injuries (multiple cranial hematomas, about 1000 ml blood in the abdominal cavity), gestational age approx. 16 to 18 weeks ± 2 weeks, and cause of death opined as Haemorrhage Shock due to Sepsis. A video sent by the deceased on 09.01.2025 and taken into custody during investigation named the applicant, mother-in-law Sitara and devar Sultan as the assailants; the Court held there was a specific allegation against the applicant. Charge-sheet reported submitted; applicant in jail since 12.09.2025 with no stated criminal history. Co-accused Iqbal (father-in-law) had been granted bail (order dated 19.06.2025, Appln. No. 19779/2025); bail of Sitara and Sultan had been rejected (orders dated 04.07.2025 and 04.09.2025, Appln. Nos. 22188/2025 and 17387/2025). Finding no ground for bail made out, the Court rejected the application; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44859 of 2025

¶3

Saniya

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Pankaj Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.
Court No.- 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

2. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.

¶9

3. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Saniya , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 13 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar.

¶11

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 11.01.2025 by Mujahid against the applicant and 07 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his niece Ajra was solemnized with Nadim as per Muslim rites & customs in which his brother Chand Babu had given gifts and spent a lot of money in the marriage but the accused were not happy with it and were demanding more dowry. His brother on 29.05.2024 had given two Apache motorcycles and Rs. Two lakh each to both his daughters along gold and silver ornaments. Both his nieces were married in the same house. Danish and Nadim used to torture and assault his nieces Arsi and Ajra and his younger

¶12

BAIL No. 44859 of 2025

¶13

¶14

niece Ajra told them due to demand of dowry they would murder her. Around 1 1/2 months back Ajra on phone informed him about it and told him that they have assaulted in her abdomen with kicks and iron rod due to which it is impossible for her to survive. She was 04 months pregnant at the time of incident then she was undergoing treatment but due to severe injuries received by her and the foetus she and the foetus both died. On 09.01.2025 she had sent a video about the incident and her being assaulted. She had told in it that her mother-in-law Sitara, her devar Sultan and her nand Saniya have assaulted her. They have murdered his niece. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶15

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is the sister-in-law / nand of the deceased and is still unmarried and has been falsely implicated. While placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit it is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted. While placing paragraph 09 of the affidavit it is submitted that as per the postmortem examination report no abdominal injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is submitted that co-accused Iqbal the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19779 of 2025 (Iqbal Vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 and is in jail since 12.09.2025.

¶16

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prosecution version is truthful and correct. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received extensive injuries on her body which have been noted in the postmortem examination report as under:-

¶17

"Anti-Mortem Injuries-

¶18

1- ON EXPLORATION OF SKULL MULTIPLE HEMATOMA BROWNISH-BLACK IN COLOUR PRESENT ON RIGHT FRONTO-PARIETAL, LEFT TEMPORAL AND OCCIPITAL REGION

¶19

BAIL No. 44859 of 2025

¶20

¶21

AND ABOUT 50 ML BLOOD PRESENT IN CRANIAL CAVITY.

¶22

2. OLD MULTIPLE SCABBED INJURY DARK BROWN IN COLOUR PRESENT ON LEFT KNEE AND LOWER BACK SIZE 03 CM x 01 CM TO 01 CM x 0.5 CM.

¶23

3- ON EXPLORATION OF CHEST AND ABDOMINAL CAVITY AFTER DISSECTION OF BOTH LUNGS PUS-POCKETS PRESENT ON BOTH LUNGS AND ABOUT 1000ML OF CLOTTED AND FREE BLOOD PRESENT IN ABDOMINAL CAVITY."

¶24

She was found to be pregnant and the LMO opinion of the doctor was as under:-

¶25

"LMO OPINION: ON EXAMINATION NO MARK OF ENTERNAL INJURY SEEN ON INNER PART OF THIGHS AND VAGINA, EXPLORATION OF DISTENDED UTERUS SIZE IS 17 CM X 16 CM X 5.5 CM, ON EXPLORATION 1 MALE IUD FETUS ATTACHED WITH UMBLICAL CORD AND PLACENTA RECOVERED, CRL LENGTH IS 16 CM, FEMUR LENGTH IS 5 CM AND TOTAL LENGTH IS 24 CM, GESTATIONAL AGE APPROX 16 TO 18 WEEKS ± 2 WEEKS, RIGHT FEMUR BONE OF FETUS WITH PLACENTA IS PRESERVED FOR DNA AND FSL EXAMINATION."

¶26

The cause of death was opined as Haemorrhage Shock due to Sepsis. It is submitted that viscera and placenta and right femur of dead fetus has been preserved for DNA. It is submitted that the bail of co-accused Sitara the mother-in-law and Sultan the devar of the deceased have been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 04.07.2025 and 04.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22188 of 2025 and 17387 of 2025. It is further submitted that the video of the deceased has been taken into custody during investigation in which the role of assault has been assigned to the applicant, Sitara the mother-in-law and Sultan the devar of the deceased. It is submitted that as such the bail application thus be rejected.

¶27

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and role has been assigned to her. The deceased was found to have received extensive injuries on her body internally which was the cause of death. She was also found to be carrying a pregnancy and the foetus has also died. The video of the deceased which has been taken into custody during investigation stated of the applicant, Sitara the mother-in-law and Sultan the devar of the deceased to be involved in the matter who had assaulted her and as such there is

¶28

BAIL No. 44859 of 2025

¶29

¶30

specific allegation against the applicant. The cause of death was opined as Haemorrhage Shock due to Sepsis. The bail of co-accused Sitara the mother-in-law and Sultan the devar of the deceased have been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. No ground for bail is made out.

¶31

9. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

December 18, 2025 AS Rathore

¶34

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶35

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

Saniya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saniya 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

Similar cases

Vindrawati vs State of U.P.

Subhash Babu @ Titu vs State of U.P.

Anil vs State of U.P.

Ravi Satija vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Rajput vs State of U.P.

Vishwajeet vs State of U.P. and 3 Others