Allahabad High Court

SAHIL ALIAS NIRHUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The court refused to grant bail, holding that the nature of the evidence and the seriousness of the charges do not warrant release of the accused at this stage.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Sahil alias Nirhu, who is charged under Sections 498‑A, 304‑B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with the death of his wife. The trial court had already rejected his first bail plea, noting injuries on the deceased – a ligature mark, contusions and a skull hematoma – and an allegation of dowry demand. The applicant argued that the first informant’s cross‑examination gave a different version and that the wife of the informant was hostile, contending the death was a suicide. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the nature of the injuries, the dowry demand allegation and the fact that the deceased died within three months of marriage. After reviewing the evidence and precedent, the bench held that the case was not suitable for bail at this stage and rejected the application.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a dowry‑death case where the post‑mortem shows injuries suggestive of foul play.
Whether the contradictory statements of prosecution witnesses and the hostile witness affect the bail decision.
Whether the earlier denial of bail influences the disposition of the second bail application.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 498-A

Subjects

bail
dowry death
IPC 498-A
IPC 304-B
post‑mortem evidence
hostile witness
criminal procedure
Section 439
Section 483

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45416 of 2025

Sahil Alias Nirhu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dev Raj Purshottam, Dhiraj Singh,
Mirza Faheem Beg, Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the
material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 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.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court
vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.
7422 of 2025 (Sahil @ Nirhu Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial in the present
matter has started in which the statement of first informant Arman has
been recorded as PW-1 and Saroja Devi the wife of the first informant has
been recorded as PW-2. It is submitted that in so far as the first informant
PW-1 is concerned although he has supported the prosecution case in the
examination-in-chief but during cross-examination he has given a
different version. It is submitted that in so far as PW-2 Smt. Saroja Devi
the wife of PW-1 and the mother of the deceased is concerned, she did not
support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the trial court. It
is submitted that the present case is a case of suicide and not homicide,
para 38 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted
that looking to the said fact, the present case is a case which may be
considered in the light of the said two statements and the applicant be
enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 06.06.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and
BAIL No. 45416 of 2025
2

submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on
merits by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 and there are allegations
against him.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025. The same reads as
under:

"1. List revised.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 at Sultanpur and has given his statement to the
Investigating Officer. It is submitted that co-accused Rajesh @ Ledde/father-in-law 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.

7. 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
BAIL No. 45416 of 2025
3

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.

8. 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 it a fit
case for bail.

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

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

8. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the deceased was found to
have received the following injuries:

"i. An oblique ligature mark 27cm×03cm present in front of neck above thyroid of
cartilage, at front of neck ligature mark present 06cm below chin, at right side of neck
it is present 05cm below right ear lobule, The direction of ligature mark is obliquely
upward and backward with gap of 05 cm present at left side of neck. The groove of
ligature mark is hard and parchment like. On cutting of groove of ligature mark
subcutaneous tissue is dry, white glistening in appearance.

ii. Contusion 06cm×03cm at right tip of shoulder.

iii. Contusion 06cm×02cm at back of head at occiput.On cutting ecchymosis present
underneath injury no 02 and 03."

9. While during her internal examination, the doctor found hematoma
present under the scalp and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due
to antemortem hanging. The said fact has been mentioned even previously
while deciding the first bail application. The fact that hematoma was
found under the scalp would go to show that there has been serious injury
under her scalp. The trial in the matter is under progress in which two
prosecution witnesses have been examined. Reference is also given to the
judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State
BAIL No. 45416 of 2025
4

of U.P. and another : SLP (Criminal) No. 15156 of 2024, Mahesh
Chand Vs. State of U.P. : 2026 INSC 440 and Lal Muni Devi Vs. State
of Bihar : Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2026, decided on
25.03.2026. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not
find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.

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

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

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

(Samit Gopal,J.)
September 30, 2026
M. ARIF

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…