Allowed

Sandeep Kannaujia @ Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2025NABAIL/638/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a case under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act arising from a wife's suicide after matrimonial dispute. The court noted no allegation against the applicant in initial statements and that he was in Mumbai on the date of incident, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: release on personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions.

Sandeep Kannaujia @ Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 638 of 2025

¶2

Sandeep Kannaujia @ Sandeep Kumar

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Another	Home Lko. And	.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ram Janak Pandey : G.A.	Yadav, Ambrish	Kumar

¶5

Court No. - 27

¶6

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2025 u/s 85, 80(2) B.N.S. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Chhapia, District- Gonda.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who was working in a private organization at Mumbai, had solemnised marriage with the daughter of the informant of the present case on 10.05.2023 and they were enjoying their matrimonial life. He further submits that the applicant did not victimize his wife, but due to some matrimonial dispute arose between them, she committed suicide. The impugned F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of concocted facts also implicating therein the applicant's mother.

¶10

It is next submitted that the statements of the informant as well as other family members were recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., but not even a single allegation was leveled against the applicant. However, in the Majeed statement of the informant, he developed a case of victimization of his daughter. Admittedly, as per the prosecution case, the applicant was in Mumbai on the date of incident for the purpose of employment.

¶11

It is lastly submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation, hence, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

NABAIL No. 638 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that initially, there was no allegation against the applicant, but in the Majeed statement of the informant, allegations as regards victimization of his daughter were leveled against the applicant.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record as well as case diary placed before this Court by learned A.G.A., it is evident from the record that on the date of the incident, the applicant was in Mumbai in relation to employment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail and in case he is taken into custody by Investigating Officer/Investigating Agency, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail after taking personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) 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 (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶19

With above directions, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

October 6, 2025 Arpan

¶21

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kannaujia @ Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kannaujia @ Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahbaz Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Kashif Kamal Khan @ Kashif Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satai Prajapati and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Ram Pal Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow and 6 Others

Naval Kishor and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Shaheen Bano @ Shanno vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.