Smt. Sonam Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on anticipatory bail in S.T. No. 191/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 375/2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Neemgaon, District Kheri.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2025 has granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused, namely, Mukesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar @ Sarvesh. The order dated 20.03.2025 is extracted below:

¶15

"1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, the learned AGA for the State.

¶16

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 375/2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Neemgaon, District Kheri.

¶17

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 31.12.2020 against seven persons, including the applicants, stating that the applicants had got his daughter married to the applicants' younger brother-co-accused Rupesh about 1-1/2 years ago; that all the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry and all of them killed her in the intervening night of 29/30.12.2020 by assaulting her with sticks.

¶18

4. The post mortem examination report mentions several injuries on the dead body

¶19

ABAIL No. 322 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

and the cause of death has been opined to be due to ante mortem strangulation.

¶22

5. Initially the Investigating Officer had submitted a charge sheet against the applicant's younger brother Rupesh, husband of the deceased, and their parents and rest of the accused persons were exonerated. After recording of some prosecution evidence, the trial court had summoned the applicants, Smt Pammi Devi, wife of applicant no. 2 and Smt. Sonam Devi, sister of the applicants, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Smt. Sonam Devi and Smt. Pammi Devi have been granted anticipatory bail by means of order dated 12.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 322 of 2025.

¶23

6. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application but on the basis of instructions received by him, he has submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicants are similar to the allegations levelled against Smt. Sonam Devi and Smt. Pammi Devi.

¶24

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicants are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have no criminal history.

¶25

8. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶26

9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶27

10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants-Mukesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar @ Sarvesh before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶28

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶29

(ii) that the applicants 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;

¶30

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶31

ABAIL No. 322 of 2025

¶32

3

¶33

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶34

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness."

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that three prosecution witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been examined. Initially the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge-sheet against Rupesh, husband of the deceased and their parents and rest of the accused persons were exonerated. After recording statement of the prosecutions witnesses, the applicants were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Co-accused Mukesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar @ Sarvesh having similar role have been summoned through Section 319 Cr.P.C., they have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2025. The applicants claim parity.

¶36

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶37

In view of the discussion made here-in-above and the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history; charge-sheet in the case has been filed; considering the bail order of the co-accused Mukesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar @ Sarvesh and the undertaking given by the applicants to cooperate in the trial, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected.

¶38

In view of the above, the applicants Smt Sonam Devi and Smt Pammi Devi are directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon their surrender, the trial court shall release them on anticipatory bail, subject to their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:-

¶39

(i) The applicants shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence;

¶40

(ii) The applicants shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court;

¶41

ABAIL No. 322 of 2025

¶42

4

¶43

(iii) The applicants shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness;

¶44

(iv) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance;

¶45

(v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶46

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶47

It is made clear that the observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶49

August 25, 2025 Arvind

¶50

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶51

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sonam Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sonam Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jameel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Ankit @ Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Smt Sharda Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Matole Alias Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ankit @ Ramjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ajuban @ Ayyub Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.