Allowed

Indrawati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2025BAIL/35611/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a dowry death case. The court found the applicant was the deceased's mother-in-law aged about 74 years, entitled to Section 480 BNSS benefit, with only general and omnibus allegations against her and the husband already in jail. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Case Crime No.210 of 2025 on personal bond and two sureties, with imposed conditions.

Indrawati Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35611 of 2025

¶3

Indrawati

¶4

	Versus	.....Ap	plicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Deepak Shanker	Kumar Srivastava, Srivastava	Ganesh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Indrawati, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.210 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Harraiya, DistrictBasti.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the motherin-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the deceased/Smt. Neha was solemnized with Deepchand the son of the applicant on 17.11.2024. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail. It is argued that the cause of death as opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and except ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on her body. It is argued that the applicant has been made accused in the present case because of she being a family member of the husband of the deceased. It is further argued that the applicant is a lady aged about 74 years, for which para-18 has been placed

¶11

BAIL No. 35611 of 2025

¶12

¶13

before the Court and is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant on 15.8.2025 on which court concerned took cognizance on 15.09.2025, para-16 has been placed before the Court for the same. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.7.2025.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is a lady aged about 74 years and is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. Husband is in jail.

¶16

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.

¶17

Let the applicant- Indrawati, 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶21

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner

¶22

BAIL No. 35611 of 2025

¶23

¶24

whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶25

(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 in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

The bail application is allowed.

¶29

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

(Samit Gopal,J.)

October 14, 2025

Naresh

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

Indrawati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrawati 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