Smt Suman Devi vs State of U.P.

This second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Smt. Suman Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No.2003 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Charge Sheet under Section 306, 120B I.P.C. registered at P.S. Lalapur, District- Prayagraj.

¶11

The first bail application of the application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48313 of 2021 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.5.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:-

¶13

(i) Co-accused Smt. Sangeeta has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4936 of 2025, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 8 to the affidavit.

¶14

(ii) In the trial statements of entire prosecution witnesses have been recorded and general role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶15

(iii) The applicant is a lady.

¶16

BAIL No. 29585 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

(iv) The doctor who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased was examined as P.W.-4 before the trial court who in his crossexamination has stated that the injuries sustained on the body of the deceased could occur from boulders or stones present in the mines and the pond and thus the entire nature of the matter would change as per the statement of the doctor.

¶19

(v) The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-36 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 20.09.2021.

¶20

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as under:-

¶21

(i) The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 09.5.2022.

¶22

(ii) Although the co-accused Smt. Sangeeta has been granted bail in her second bail application but reading of the order would go to show that the ground therein taken for grant of bail, was that she was in jail with a two months old child.

¶23

(iii) In the present matter 04 persons have died amongst whom two persons have received head injuries.

¶24

(iv) Trial is at a very advanced stage inasmuch as the statement of defense witnesses has also concluded which would appear from the order sheet of the trial court and also the statements filed with the bail application which would go to show that the statement of D.W.-4 has been recorded on 04.07.2025 and thus the matter as per records, is at the stage of arguments and looking to the advance stage of trial, it is not a fit case for bail to be considered at this stage.

¶25

(v) The order sheet of the trial court dated 05.10.2024 shows that the trial court has specifically written that the High Court has issued directions for early disposal of cases in which the accused persons are detained in jail and as such is conscious of the fact that trial is to be concluded expeditiously.

¶26

(vi) It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected.

¶27

BAIL No. 29585 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 09.5.2022. The same reads as under:-

¶30

"Heard Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Gyan Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶31

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Smt. Suman Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2021, under Sections 306, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Lalapur, District Prayagraj.

¶32

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the jethani of the deceased Smt. Renu Yadav. It is argued that initially the first information report was lodged under Section 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. by Shiv Shankar Yadav, the father of the deceased against the applicant and 08 other persons but the Investigating Officer subsequently found that the case is not in the said sections and then converted it into a case under Sections 306, 120-B I.P.C. and then submitted a charge-sheet in the said sections. It is argued that the allegations in the first information report are totally false and concocted. The allegation of demand of dowry has been alleged against Shivkaran @ Gore Yadav the husband of the deceased, Savitri Devi her mother-in-law and Amrit Lal her father-in-law. It is argued that although the applicant is named in the first information report but general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against her. It is further argued that there is no overt act or abetment or instigation alleged against the applicant. It is argued that four persons died by committing suicide. It is argued that as such the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 16 and is in jail since 20.09.2021.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that in the present matter Smt. Renu Yadav daughter of the first informant

¶34

BAIL No. 29585 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

and wife of Shivkaran Yadav, Kumari Kalpana aged about 15 years being daughter of Renu Devi, Kumari Saroj @ Kallu aged about 10 years and Master Golu aged about 08 years who all are children of Renu Yadav have died. It is argued that the effort of demonstrating that there is no instigation or abetment by the applicant is not pleaded at all. It is further argued that perusal of the postmortem examination report of Renu Devi would show that she has received 05 injuries on her person and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning, the deceased Kumari Kalpana was found to have received a contusion on her parietal area which had haematoma present and the base of skull was found to be fractured and the cause of death was opined to be coma due to antemortem head injury, Kumari Saroj @ Kallu had received an abraded contusion on her lips and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning and Alok @ Golu was found to have received a contused swelling on the back of skull and was having haematoma present in brain and base of skull was fractured and the cause of death was coma due to antemortem head injury. It is further argued that Sangeeta Yadav the dewrani of the deceased had applied for bail before this Court which has been rejected vide order dated 10.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40208 of 2021 (Sangeeta Yadav vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order has been produced which is taken on record. It is argued that as such the matter is serious in nature and the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶37

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the jethani of the deceased. In the present matter, four persons have died. Two persons have died due to head injury. The bail of co-accused Sangeeta Yadav has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶38

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

¶39

Co-accused Sangeeta whose second bail application has been allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, was granted bail in which there was argument that she is incarcerated in jail with her newly born daughter.

¶40

BAIL No. 29585 of 2025

¶41

5

¶42

The trial in the present matter is at a very advanced stage as the records shows that even the statement of D.W.-4 has been recorded in the trial way back in the month of July 2025. Looking to the advance stage of trial and the fact that the present bail application is second bail, no interference is called for. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶43

However, the trial court is directed to make an endeavor to expedite and conclude the same at the earliest without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., subject to any legal impediment.

¶44

Registrar(Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned trial court/District and Sessions Judge within 10 days for information and necessary compliance.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

November 6, 2025

Naresh

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Suman Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Suman Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay @ Vijay Singh vs State of U.P.

Nusrat Ali vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Waseem Alias Vaseem vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.