Allahabad High Court

SAROJ RATHOREversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 April 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; bail is not granted to the appellant.

Summary

The appellant, Saroj Rathore, was charged with murdering a young woman by hanging her after she returned from her marriage, as alleged in an FIR filed by her father. The appellant sought bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, claiming lack of credible evidence and asserting that the death was a suicide. The State and the opposing party argued that the appellant was named in the FIR, had a clear motive, and that spot inspection and post‑mortem findings indicated a struggle and ligature marks consistent with homicide. The court examined the charge‑sheet, CDR records, and forensic report, finding that the evidence established a prima facie case and that no ground for bail existed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the bail rejection order.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the evidence.
Whether the evidence on record establishes a prima facie case of murder against the appellant.
Whether the appellant's presence at the scene of the alleged offence can be excluded.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
murder
homicide
post‑mortem
evidence
criminal appeal
prima facie case

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2783 of 2026

Saroj Rathore
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Kumar Saroj, G.A., Nagendra
Bahadur Singh, Sanjay Yadav

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Abhishek Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri
Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the
appellant- Saroj Rathore, with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order
dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / A.D.J.-IInd,
Kanpur Dehat in S.S.T. No. 1227 / 2025 (Saroj Rathore Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 184 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S.
and Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur
Nagar.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 18.06.2025
by Harish Chandra Dhanuk against the appellant alleging therein that he was
having a one sided love with his daughter and was forcing to marry her and
used to trouble her. His daughter had made a complaint to him about it on
which he went to the house of the appellant Saroj Rathore and made a
complaint wherein he threatened him and stated that if he marries his
daughter anywhere else he would not leave her alive. On being frightened he
did not make a complaint to anyone but married his daughter on 26.05.2025 in
Kannauj in a simple ceremony and sent her off in vidai. On 15.06.2025 when
his daughter was called back in vidai on the same night Saroj Rathore
somehow took her outside the house and after going to some distance hung
her with a saree on a tree and murdered her and ran away. A report be lodged
and action be taken.
CRLA No. 2783 of 2026
2

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. While placing the inquest report it is
submitted that an information was given to the police station that the deceased
died by committing suicide and when the police reached there her parents
were present there who gave an application to it. It is further submitted that
there is no credible evidence against the appellant. It is submitted that the
CDR of the deceased and the appellant was obtained during investigation in
which there were various calls between both of them lasting for long durations
which would show that the deceased was interested in the appellant and used
to talk to him. It is submitted that charge-sheet dated 30.07.2025 has been
submitted against the appellant and thus there are no chances of the appellant
tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing
postmortem report of the deceased submitted that the deceased was found to
have received one injury as noted therein which reads as under:-

"Injury No.1, Ligature mark in Form of pressure abrasion, Dry parchment like, Grooved and
Furrowed, Encircling the neck horizontally with oblique upwards, Anteriorly, non contineous,
With a gap of 5cm left side back of neck, width of ligature mark is 2cm, Neck Circumference
32cm, Distance 9cm above suprasternal notch, 5cm below chin, 4cm below angle of right
mandible, 7cm below right mastoid bone, Just below angle of left mandible, 1 cm below left
mastoid bone."

The cause of death was opined as combined effects of asphyxia, venous
congestion, consequent upon Antemortem Hanging and its related
complications. It is submitted that the appellant be granted bail and the appeal
be allowed. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the
affidavit and is in jail since 19.06.2025.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer
for bail, submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the present appeal
and submitted that the spot inspection of the place where the dead body was
found as noted in the case-diary would go to show that before the incident
there was struggle by the deceased as items of her body and even parts of
clothes were found there which would go to show that a lot of struggle was
there. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the first information report
and he has a motive to commit the offence. The marriage of the deceased
was solemnized at some other place in a simple ceremony and after vidai
when she came back then in the same night she was murdered which was the
threat extended by the appellant to the first informant which has been stated in
the first information report itself. It is submitted that the CDR of the deceased
would go to show that the he was present at the place of occurrence at the
time of the incident. It is submitted that the injuries as received by the
deceased and the cause of death would go to show that there was pressure
CRLA No. 2783 of 2026
3

on her neck as pressure abrasion was found which then led to ligature mark
which would go to show that she was murdered. It is submitted that the appeal
be dismissed and the prayer for bail be rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence cannot
be ruled out and is seen from the CDR collected during investigation. The
appellant has a motive to commit the offence which is clearly mentioned in the
first information report. It is further submitted while placing the inquest that
there were certain other injury marks on the body of the deceased as noted in
the inquest although the same were not found at the time of postmortem
examination which would go to show that there was struggle at the time of
incident.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is evident that the appellant is named in the first information report. He has a
motive to commit the offence. The motive is clearly spelt out in the first
information report. The deceased was married to someone else in a simple
ceremony and when she came back for the first time in vidai to her maternal
house she was taken away by the appellant on the same night and the
present incident took place. Charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted
against the appellant. The spot inspection and the postmortem report do not
rule out the possibility of struggle by the deceased at the time of the incident.
No ground for bail is made out.

9. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

April 29, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…