Allahabad High Court
SUNEEL SAGARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted to the applicant at this stage.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Suneel Sagar, husband of a deceased woman, in a criminal case (Crime No. 561 of 2025) involving alleged dowry demands and related offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant argued that the deceased committed suicide and that he was falsely implicated, citing lack of specific evidence and his clean record. The State opposed bail, contending that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and that material indicated she suffered cruelty for non‑fulfilment of dowry demands. After evaluating the submissions, the Court found the material sufficient to deny bail at this stage. The bail application was rejected, and the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial, referencing the Supreme Court’s observations in Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving alleged dowry cruelty and death under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the evidence on record shows a prima facie case of dowry‑related cruelty justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry prohibition
- dowry death
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- suicide
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12543 of 2026
Suneel Sagar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Roshan
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.561 of 2025, under
Sections 80(2) & 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bhamora, District Bareilly.
3. In compliance of the order dated 27.07.2026, the counsel for the applicant
has produced the pen drive but same is not the part of the case diary,
therefore, it cannot be looked into by the Court.
4. Contention of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of
the deceased. He has been falsely implicated. The deceased herself
committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. It is further submitted
that on the basis of general and vague allegation, the applicant has been
falsely implicated, though in the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses,
no specific time and date has been mentioned for demand of dowry,
therefore, the allegation of demand of dowry is absolutely false and the
applicant has been falsely implicated. Applicant has no criminal history. He
is languishing in jail since 18.12.2025. In case the applicant is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the
investigation/trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
BAIL No. 12543 of 2026
2
submitted that the deceased died under unnatural circumstance within seven
years of her marriage and there was consistence statement of first informant
and other family members of the deceased that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is
not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account that the deceased died under unnatural circumstance
within seven years of her marriage and there is material showing that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry, therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the
applicant on bail, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
8. However, considering the observations made by the Apex Court in the
case of Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Writ Petition (Crl)
No.99 of 2026 that if a person is in jail, then it is the duty of the trial court
and the prosecution to conclude the trial as early as possible, therefore, the
trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 18, 2026
CS/-
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…