Dismissed¶36

Seema Devi v. State of U.P.

Bail (second application) – rejection for want of new grounds

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2025BAIL/29766/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application of Seema Devi rejected for absence of new grounds; Case Crime No.0099 of 2024, P.S. Manda, Prayagraj; Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act; video-recorded dying declaration, Section 65B certificate objection; custody since 20.09.2024; first application No.39381 of 2024 rejected 10.07.2025; trial to be expedited per Vinod Kumar (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain (2017) 5 SCC 702; Krishan Pahal, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; decided October 14, 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; bail refused. The trial court was additionally directed to dispose of the pending case expeditiously. ¶36

Seema Devi vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail refused. The trial court was additionally directed to dispose of the pending case expeditiously.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Seema Devi, arraigned in Case Crime No.0099 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, is entitled to be enlarged on bail (second bail application). +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

Bail is refused and the applicant remains in custody; the application is pronounced devoid of merits and rejected.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The second bail application is rejected: the Court found no new ground for pressing it and considered it devoid of merits, the underlying facts having already been dealt with in the earlier rejection order dated 10.07.2025.

¶36

Key takeaways

Trial court directed to decide the pending criminal case expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶37
Clarificatory caveat: the observations in the order are confined to the facts brought by the parties for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail (second application) — rejection for want of new grounds — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 67 (Krishan Pahal, J.), 14 October 2025. Applicant Seema Devi, in custody since 20.09.2024 in Case Crime No.0099 of 2024, P.S. Manda, Yamuna Nagar Commissionerate Prayagraj (Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act), renewed her plea after her first application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39381 of 2024) had been rejected on 10.07.2025 on the strength of a video-recorded dying declaration implicating her. Defence urged that the video lacked a Section 65B certificate, fell outside Section 32 of the Evidence Act, and that the transcription correction (Chachiya Dewar to Chachiya Saas) was an afterthought; the A.G.A. countered that nothing new had surfaced during trial. Holding that no new ground existed and the matter stood already considered in the earlier rejection order, the Court found the second application devoid of merits and rejected it, while directing expeditious disposal of the pending trial per Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, its observations being confined to the bail disposal without bearing on trial merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29766 of 2025

¶3

Seema Devi

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Abhishek Mishra, Kumar Mishra	P.K.	Singh, Pramod
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 67

¶7

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶8

List has been revised.

¶9

Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0099 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Manda, District Yamuna Nagar Commissionerate Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

¶11

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39381 of 2024 and the following order was passed:-

¶12

"1. List has been revised.

¶13

2. Heard Sri Saurabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

¶14

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0099 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Manda, District - Yamuna Nagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), during the pendency of trial.

¶15

BAIL No. 29766 of 2025

¶16

¶17

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of nephew of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites on 20.05.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of Rs. 02 lakhs as dowry. The victim is stated to have set afire by the applicant and other family members leading her to death on 08.05.2024 at about 11:00 PM.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the aunt-in-law (chachiya saas) of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 17 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶19

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant lives separately to the other family members, as such, she has been falsely implicated in the case. The name of the applicant has come up subsequently in a doctored video recording of the deceased person which depicts that the applicant was also involved in setting her afire. Prior to it, there are two documents which indicate that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶20

7. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on an application given by the deceased person herself one day before her death whereby she has levelled allegations against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brotherin-law only. The said application has been filed as Annexure- 2 to the affidavit. The statement of the victim (now deceased) has been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. whereby she had levelled allegations of setting her afire against her husband and father-in-law Raj Kumar Sonkar, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

¶21

8. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.09.2024, having no criminal history to her credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶22

9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the dying declaration of the deceased was also video-recorded. Although the original documents pertaining to the dying declaration went missing, a thorough search is on for it. The transcription of the said video

¶23

BAIL No. 29766 of 2025

¶24

¶25

of dying declaration of deceased person indicates that the applicant was also involved in the commissioning of the said crime, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶26

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that there is a video recording of the dying declaration of the deceased person whereby the applicant has also been assigned the role of being involved in setting the deceased on fire, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶27

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶28

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶29

13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated the dying declaration did not mention the name of the applicant, rather it was mentioned to be one cousin brother-in-law (Chachiya Dewar) of the deceased person, but subsequently it has been clarified that the said video was wrongly transcribed and it mentioned the name of the applicant (Chachiya Saas) .

¶31

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said improvement has been made as an afterthought. There is no certificate of Section 65B as per the provisions of Evidence Act, as such, the said video can also not be taken into consideration and does not fall within the purview of Section 32 of Evidence Act. The applicant is in jail since 20.09.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶32

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application

¶33

BAIL No. 29766 of 2025

¶34

¶35

on the ground that nothing new has come up during trial. The said facts were already discussed at the time of passing of the earlier rejection order dated 10.7.2025.

¶36

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶37

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶38

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶39

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶40

October 14, 2025

¶41

(Ravi Kant)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Seema Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema 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

Rashik vs State of U.P.

Satya Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jiya Khan @ Gudiya vs State of U.P.

Raj Alias Bihari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Savita Alias Chirag vs State of U.P.

Amrish Sharma vs State of U.P.