State of Uttar Pradesh v. Abhidev Sen and others) arising out of Case Crime No

1.Heard Mr. Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Ms. Divya Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party on the application for bail. filed by in an appeal first bail application 2.This appellants/applicants (Jhabbu Lal and Smt. Munni Devi) against the judgement and order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C., Unnao in Session Trial No.21 of 2018 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Abhidev Sen and others) arising out of Case Crime No.294 of 2017, under Sections 304-B & 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Asivan, District-Unnao, whereby the present appellants/ applicants have been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations, so far as it relates to the present appellants/ applicants (Jhabbu Lal and Smt. Munni Devi).

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has stated that both the appellants, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, remained on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. They are languishing in jail since 17.05.2024 i.e the date of conviction order. Both the appellants have been convicted for seven years rigorous imprisonment. However, the husband of the deceased has been convicted for life imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that as per the prosecution story, the accused persons have demanded dowry from the 2 CRLA No. 1992 of 2024 family members of the deceased to purchase the Motorcycle and Rs.1.00 lakh. However, as a matter of fact, this is a case of suicide committed by the deceased for the reason that she was willing to live with her husband, who was serving at Bombay, but on account of his compelling circumstances he was unable to take her to Bombay. The cause of death is hanging and except the ligature marks there is no ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that since the deceased committed suicide in the premises of the present appellants, therefore, they have been convicted only for the reason that they could not disprove the presumption of Section 113(b) of Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial court has found the husband of the deceased more responsible than the present appellants. Therefore, they have been awarded only imprisonment for seven years as well as another lesser punishment saying that all the punishment shall run concurrently. During trial the present appellants were on bail and they did not misuse the liberty of bail and further they will not misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, the present appellants may be released on bail. He undertakes that as and when the appeal is listed for final hearing, he will argue the appeal on merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment. He has also stated that direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest as the same is not prepared as yet.

6.Per contra, Ms. Divya Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that since the victim died under some mysterious circumstances in the house of her in-laws, therefore, the present appellants as well as husband of the deceased are equally responsible. She has further submitted that the Paper-book is not ready, therefore, direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper- book at the earliest so that the appeal may be heard finally.

7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellants /applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased; they remained on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail; they have been awarded lesser punishment in comparison to the husband of the deceased inasmuch as they have been awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment whereas the husband of the deceased has been awarded life imprisonment; the cause of death is hanging and there is no ante-mortem injuries except ligature marks around 3 CRLA No. 1992 of 2024 the neck which might be caused on account of hanging; the victim was willing to live with her husband at Bombay where he was serving but her husband could not take her to Bombay on account of some compelling circumstances so she might have committed suicide feeling annoyed from her husband; the Paper-book is not ready and the undertaking of learned counsel for the present appellants/ applicants that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed, we find it appropriate that the present appellants/ applicants may be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9.Let the present appellants/applicants (Jhabbu Lal and Smt. Munni Devi), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail in the aforesaid session trial on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions. (i) The original copy of the bail bonds and sureties be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record after keeping its photocopy on record. far as the amount of (ii) So the present appellants/applicants shall deposit 50% of the total fine amount within four weeks from the date of their release, however, the remaining 50% of the fine amount shall remain stayed. is concerned, (iii) It is made clear that if the accused-appellants/applicants commit any offence during course of bail, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (Order on Appeal)

10.List this criminal appeal in the month of January, 2026 for final hearing.

11.Office is directed to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rules. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November19,2025 Suresh/

1.Heard Mr. Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Ms. Divya Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party on the application for bail. filed by in an appeal first bail application 2.This appellants/applicants (Jhabbu Lal and Smt. Munni Devi) against the judgement and order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C., Unnao in Session Trial No.21 of 2018 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Abhidev Sen and others) arising out of Case Crime No.294 of 2017, under Sections 304-B & 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Asivan, District-Unnao, whereby the present appellants/ applicants have been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations, so far as it relates to the present appellants/ applicants (Jhabbu Lal and Smt. Munni Devi).

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has stated that both the appellants, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, remained on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. They are languishing in jail since 17.05.2024 i.e the date of conviction order. Both the appellants have been convicted for seven years rigorous imprisonment. However, the husband of the deceased has been convicted for life imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that as per the prosecution story, the accused persons have demanded dowry from the 2 CRLA No. 1992 of 2024 family members of the deceased to purchase the Motorcycle and Rs.1.00 lakh. However, as a matter of fact, this is a case of suicide committed by the deceased for the reason that she was willing to live with her husband, who was serving at Bombay, but on account of his compelling circumstances he was unable to take her to Bombay. The cause of death is hanging and except the ligature marks there is no ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that since the deceased committed suicide in the premises of the present appellants, therefore, they have been convicted only for the reason that they could not disprove the presumption of Section 113(b) of Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial court has found the husband of the deceased more responsible than the present appellants. Therefore, they have been awarded only imprisonment for seven years as well as another lesser punishment saying that all the punishment shall run concurrently. During trial the present appellants were on bail and they did not misuse the liberty of bail and further they will not misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, the present appellants may be released on bail. He undertakes that as and when the appeal is listed for final hearing, he will argue the appeal on merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment. He has also stated that direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest as the same is not prepared as yet.

6.Per contra, Ms. Divya Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that since the victim died under some mysterious circumstances in the house of her in-laws, therefore, the present appellants as well as husband of the deceased are equally responsible. She has further submitted that the Paper-book is not ready, therefore, direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper- book at the earliest so that the appeal may be heard finally.

7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellants /applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased; they remained on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail; they have been awarded lesser punishment in comparison to the husband of the deceased inasmuch as they have been awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment whereas the husband of the deceased has been awarded life imprisonment; the cause of death is hanging and there is no ante-mortem injuries except ligature marks around 3 CRLA No. 1992 of 2024 the neck which might be caused on account of hanging; the victim was willing to live with her husband at Bombay where he was serving but her husband could not take her to Bombay on account of some compelling circumstances so she might have committed suicide feeling annoyed from her husband; the Paper-book is not ready and the undertaking of learned counsel for the present appellants/ applicants that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed, we find it appropriate that the present appellants/ applicants may be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9.Let the present appellants/applicants (Jhabbu Lal and Smt. Munni Devi), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail in the aforesaid session trial on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions. (i) The original copy of the bail bonds and sureties be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record after keeping its photocopy on record. far as the amount of (ii) So the present appellants/applicants shall deposit 50% of the total fine amount within four weeks from the date of their release, however, the remaining 50% of the fine amount shall remain stayed. is concerned, (iii) It is made clear that if the accused-appellants/applicants commit any offence during course of bail, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (Order on Appeal)

10.List this criminal appeal in the month of January, 2026 for final hearing.

11.Office is directed to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rules. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November19,2025 Suresh/