Subansa vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15930

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3667 of 2025

Applicant :- Subansa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 483 of BNSS, applicant Subansa, who is involved in Case Crime No. 619 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sahjanwa, district Gorakhpur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant has four sons. The deceased was wife of her second son, who had solemnized marriage with the deceased against the wishes of his family members. On account of this reason, deceased alongwith her husband was living separately in the old house and the applicant had no concern with the family affairs of her second son and his wife (deceased). Much emphasis has been given by contending that the said fact is also corroborated from the statement of independent witness Parikhan. It is also pointed out that the deceased died her unnatural death by committing suicide in the house of her husband, which is far away from the house of the applicant. The information about the death of deceased was also given by her husband to the parents of the deceased. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case making general allegation of demand of dowry whereas under the facts of the case, there was no question of demand of dowry because marriage of her son with the deceased was not an arranged marriage but it was a

¶9

love marriage. The applicant does not have any criminal history to her credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.09.2024 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of Sections 117 and 118 of BNS but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per post mortem report of the deceased, cause of her death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injury (hanging). It is also not in dispute that the deceased alongwith her husband was living separately and she had solemnized love marriage. I also find that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Subansa 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:-

¶14

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶15

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly

¶16

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.

¶17

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶18

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Shubham

¶21

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

Subansa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subansa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpa Devi vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui @ Mohd. Irfan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Sachivalya Lko. and 3 Others

Shamshad vs State of U.P.

Ram Briksha vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ragib and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others