Sahil @ Nirhu vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46419

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7422 of 2025

Applicant :- Sahil @ Nirhu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, 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/483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Sahil @ Nirhu , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 174 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Karchhana, District Prayagraj.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 03.06.2024 by Arman against the applicant and two others with the allegation that his daughter Somina was married with Sahil @ Nirhu the applicant in March 2024 after which she was subjected to torture and harassment and there was a demand of a motorcycle and one gold ring as dowry. On 02.06.2024 his daughter has murdered and on receiving an information he went there and found her dead body.

¶10

The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 03.06.2024 and doctor found a ligature mark and two contusions present and the cause of death was opined is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶11

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. It is submitted that there was never any demand of dowry either by the applicant or family members in the present matter. It is further submitted while placing para 22 of the affidavit that as a matter of fact the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident but he was doing job

¶12

at Sultanpur and has given his statement to the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that co-accused Rajesh @ Ledde/father-inlaw of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47061 of 2024 (Rajesh @ Ledde Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.06.2024.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within three months of her marriage. It is submitted that there is an allegation of demand of dowry. It is submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that apart from a ligature mark, the deceased was found to have received two contusions also for which there is no explanation. It is submitted that in so far as the co-accused who has been granted bail is concerned, he is the father-in-law of the deceased but the applicant is the husband of the deceased and as such the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused. It is further submitted that the postmortem examination shows hematoma present in the skull which goes to show that the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment soon before her death. It is submitted that the said 2nd page of the postmortem report has not been annexed with the bail application which shows hematoma to be present, for reasons best known to learned counsel for the applicant, he has produced before this Court the photocopy of the complete postmortem examination report at the time of hearing of the matter. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased was found to have received a ligature mark and two contusions on her body. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging but the postmortem examination report goes to show that beneath skull hematoma was present. This is the second page of the postmortem examination report which has not been annexed with the bail application which was called for from the learned State counsel and seen by the Court. This Court is at a loss whether to consider it as intentional act or an oversight. The deceased died within three months of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. There is an allegation of demand of dowry. I do not find

¶15

it a fit case for bail.

¶16

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶18

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 M. ARIF

¶19

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahil @ Nirhu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil @ Nirhu 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

Rajendra and Another vs State of U.P.

Sandeep vs State of U.P.

Anoj Alias Anoj Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Verma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishwajeet vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sakir and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another