Allowed

Smt. Guddi Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2025BAIL/34895/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS by the mother-in-law of a deceased woman in a dowry/death case; counsel cited omnibus allegations, delayed FIR and her being a lady. Court found no risk of evidence tampering, granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions imposed in the interest of justice.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34895 of 2025

Smt. Guddi Devi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Patel, Yashwant Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 66

¶7

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶8

List revised.

¶9

Heard Sri Yashwant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Smt. Guddi Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 90 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Sakrawa, District Kannauj.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:

¶12

(i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

(ii) The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Suman Devi.

¶14

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Suman Devi was solemnized with Deepu Nath son of the applicant on 13.12.2023.

¶15

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The deceased was leading a happy married life as is evident from the wedlock one child was born, para 18 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court.

¶16

(v) Postmortem examination report shows the cause of death of the deceased as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶17

(vi) The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on 27.07.2025 in which Prem Nath the first informant was also present as a witness but at that time no complaint or objection made by him.

¶18

BAIL No. 34895 of 2025

¶19

¶20

Subsequently after four days i.e. 30.07.2025 the present FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay.

¶21

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 08.08.2025.

¶22

(viii) Deepu Nath the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶23

(ix) The applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 BNSS.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶25

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Deepu Nath the husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant is a lady.

¶26

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Let the applicant Smt. Guddi 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶28

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶29

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under

¶32

BAIL No. 34895 of 2025

¶33

¶34

section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶35

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶36

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶37

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶38

The bail application is allowed .

¶39

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶40

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶41

October 10, 2025 M. ARIF

¶42

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Guddi Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guddi Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh vs State of U.P.

Sandeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nadra Alias Nadra Khanam Alias Nadira Khanam vs State of U.P. and Another

Savitri vs State of U.P.

Smt. Munesh vs State of U.P.