Allowed

Smt. Jasoda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025BAIL/37321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS by a mother-in-law accused in a dowry death case where cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem hanging and the husband was already jailed. The court found no convincing material suggesting tampering with evidence and enlarged the applicant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with standard conditions; pending applications disposed of.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37321 of 2025

¶2

Smt. Jasoda

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Smt. Jasoda, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 108 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Saujana, District Lalitpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:

¶11

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

¶12

(ii) The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Harkunwar @ Kunwar Bai.

¶13

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Harkunwar @ Kunwar Bai was solemnized with Vinod son of the applicant one years ago.

¶14

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. There is no specification regarding the allegation of demand of dowry inasmuch as it is not specified as to what was the actual demand.

¶15

(v) Postmortem examination report shows that although the viscera was preserved but the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging which is specifically written in the postmortem examination report and she was found to have received a single ligature mark.

¶16

(vi) Vinod the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶17

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 34 of the

¶18

BAIL No. 37321 of 2025

¶19

¶20

affidavit and is in jail since 24.07.2025.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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. Although the viscera was preserved but the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging which has come in the postmortem report. Vinod the husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant is a lady.

¶24

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.

¶25

Let the applicant Smt. Jasoda 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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 section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶30

(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

¶31

BAIL No. 37321 of 2025

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

The bail application is allowed .

¶37

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

¶38

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶39

October 29, 2025 M. ARIF

¶40

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

Smt. Jasoda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jasoda 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