Anurag Singh vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4626 of 2026

Anurag Singh

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Pankaj Satsangi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.149 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation he has been roped in the present matter.

¶11

He further argued, actually marriage of the deceased has been solemnized with the applicant against her wishes and therefore she was not happy with her marriage with the applicant and she did not perform her matrimonial duties and therefore very often serious dispute arose between husband and wife and only due to this reason within five months of her marriage she committed suicide by hanging. He further argued, even postmortem report suggests, deceased died due to hanging.

¶12

He further submits, however postmortem report suggests, apart from the ligature mark deceased also sustained one incised wound and a linear abrasion but both the injuries are minor and considering the nature of

¶13

BAIL No. 4626 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

these injuries possibility cannot be ruled out that while she was trying to commit suicide, she sustained these injuries from her bangles.

¶16

He next argued, applicant is not having any other criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 16.06.2025 i.e. for last more than nine months.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of one another case but he fairly conceded that case relates to minor offence. He could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within five months of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture in connection to demand of a four wheeler but as per autopsy surgeon deceased died due to hanging therefore possibility of suicide committed by the deceased cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶20

Further, however postmortem report also suggests, apart from the ligature mark deceased also sustained two other injuries including one incised wound and one linear abrasion but both the injuries appear to be minor injuries on non-vital part and considering the seat of the injuries the explanation given by learned counsel for the applicant during course of argument with regard to these injuries cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further, even considering the short duration of marriage the reason of suicide disclosed by the applicant in the instant bail application also cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

¶21

Further, however it reflects, applicant apart from the present case is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than nine months.

¶22

BAIL No. 4626 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

¶25

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶27

Let the applicant - Anurag Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶32

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

March 18, 2026

Shahroz

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anurag Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nathu Verma vs State of U.P.

Taufeeq @ Tauseef vs State of U.P.

Monu vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow and Others

Umashankar and Another vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar Bajpei vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagveer vs State of U.P. and Another