Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30318 of 2025 Tara Devi State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : : Chandan Singh Bimla Prasad, G.A. Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Chandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Bimla Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 146 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of the deceased got a first information report lodged on 06.05.2025 against seven accused persons, namely, Ratneshwar Kharwar, Tara Devi (applicant), Shashikant, Sonam, Munnu, Chhotu and Subhash, who are in-laws of the deceased making allegations inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Ratneshwar Kharwar on 07.03.2025, but after marriage her in-laws started harassing her in her matrimonial home and on non fulfilment of their demand of dowry (Refrigerator, T.V. and Rs. 5,00,000/-). On 29.04.2025 his daughter gave information that she was badly beaten by her husband and his family members. On the said information when the complainant reached her matrimonial home, he came to know that his daughter is admitted in Oriana Hospital and during her treatment she died. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Marriage of deceased-Jyoti was solemnized on 07.03.2025 with the son of the applicant and there was no demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution. On 19.04.2025 she made a complaint of pain in her stomach then her ultrasound was done on the same day, wherein it was found that she was having pregnancy of 6 weeks and 2 BAIL No. 30318 of 2025 2 days (total 44 days) and after seeing the report she was shocked because she had been in her matrimonial home for only 42 days. Thereafter she made an attempt to commit suicide on 29.04.2025. Then she was immediately taken to Oriana Hospital for her treatment where her treatment was going on but she died during her treatment on 05.05.2025. It is also pointed out that as soon as deceased made an attempt to commit suicide on 29.04.2025, information about the said incident was given to her parents, thereafter they also reached the hospital in the evening of 29.04.2025 itself and they were constantly present up to 05.05.2025, but they did not make any complaint against the applicant or her family members. After the death of the deceased in the hospital, F.I.R. was lodged on 06.05.2025 on the false and concocted allegations against the applicant and her family members. It is also submitted that the case of applicant being mother-in-law is distinguishable from that of husband of the deceased. No specific role has been attributed to the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent and languishing in jail since 30.05.2025. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per post-mortem report of the deceased except the ligature marks no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased and as per opinion of the doctor cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. After receiving information, family members of the deceased immediately reached the hospital on 29.04.2025 and they were present there till 05.05.2025, but they did not make any allegation against the applicant and other co-accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Tara Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of 3 BAIL No. 30318 of 2025 the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after her release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 11, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad