Sandeep Alias Monu vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51195

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4537 of 2025

Applicant :- Sandeep Alias Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar,Komal Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Adesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Sandeep @ Monu , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 280 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 07.05.2024 by Raj Kumar against the applicant and 04 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Shashi was solemnized with Sandeep (the applicant) on 27.11.2023. After marriage the accused persons used to torture & trouble her for dowry. There was demand of a car and Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry which could not be fulfilled. On 06.05.2024 at about 8:00 pm the accused persons due to nonfulfillment of their demand threw his sister from third floor of the house and murdered her. At about 9:00 pm on the same day in the night he received a call from Sonu the jeth of the deceased about the incident. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the first information report was lodged against five persons but the police found the implication of Jeth Sonu and Devar Sanju to be false and exonerated them. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 29 of the affidavit that there was a CCTV installed at the place of occurrence but the Investigating Officer has not collected the CCTV footage of the same during investigation. It is submitted that the deceased fell accidentally from the said place and received injuries after which she was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi by the applicant and was admitted there but could not survive. It is next submitted that Smt. Mithlesh the mother-in-law and Gyan Singh the father-in-law of the deceased

¶11

have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 16.10.2024 and 19.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37499 of 2024 and 32164 of 2024, the copy of both the orders are annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 34 and is in jail since 09.05.2024.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within six months of marriage and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the postmortem examination report of the deceased shows that she has received 22 injuries on her person and the cause of death was opined as Shock as a result of antemortem injury to head and abdomen produced by blunt force impact. It is next submitted that the Emergency Registration Card of the deceased at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi would go to show that when she was brought to the hospital the heart sound was not heard, she was unconscious and unresponsive, there was no breath sound present and even no carotid pulse was recordable which would go to show that she was brought dead in the said hospital, the copy of the same has been placed before the Court which is at page 47 of the paper-book. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be thus rejected.

¶13

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 six months of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. There is an allegation of demand of dowry by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased was found to have received 22 injuries on her person. The Emergency Registration Card of the hospital goes to show that she was brought dead in the main casualty on 06.05.2024 at 09:52 pm as has been noted in the same. No ground for bail exists.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 AS Rathore

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶18

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

Sandeep Alias Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Alias Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Milan vs State of U.P.

Usha Devi vs State of U.P.

Aziz vs State of U.P.

Satto Devi vs State of U.P.

Deepak vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kalawati vs State of U.P.