Smt Kamlesh Devi vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38144 of 2025

Smt Kamlesh Devi	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Gaurav Mishra, Shiv Sharan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 66

¶4

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Smt. Kamlesh Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 215 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Gaunda, District Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Neeraj was solemnized with Shiv Kumar son of the applicant on 14.05.2021.

¶12

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The deceased and her husband were leading a happy married life as would appear from the fact that two girls from the wedlock have born.

¶13

(v) Postmortem examination report shows the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging with single ligature mark.

¶14

(vi) Shive Kumar the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶15

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 4 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.09.2025.

¶16

BAIL No. 38144 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

(viii) The FIR has been lodged after an explain delay of about two days. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, Languriya and Shiv Kumar whereas the other co-accused persons named in the FIR have been exonerated, copy of the charge sheet is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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 is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Shiv Kumar the husband of the deceased is in jail. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and two other persons. The applicant is a lady.

¶22

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.

¶23

Let the applicant Smt. Kamlesh 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

BAIL No. 38144 of 2025

¶29

3

¶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 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.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

The bail application is allowed .

¶34

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

¶35

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶36

November 3, 2025 M. ARIF

¶37

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

Smt Kamlesh Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kamlesh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Shashi Kapoor vs State of U.P.

Ramkesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sansari vs State of U.P.

Satish vs State of U.P.

Smt. Barfi vs State of U.P.