Uma Shankar vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38776 of 2025

Uma Shankar

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Abhinav Trivedi, Adarsh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, 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 Uma Shankar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 135 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶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 father-in-law of the deceased Shivani.

¶13

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Shivani was solemnized with Ravi son of the applicant on 23.11.2023.

¶14

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The FIR has been lodged after 12 days of the incident and the delay in lodging of the same is unexplained.

¶15

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

¶16

(vi) The applicant was a witness of the inquest which would go to show that he did not try to abscond but for supporting the investigation. Subsequently the FIR has been lodged levelling false and concocted allegations with delay. Charge sheet dated 21.05.2025 has been submitted against the applicant, Ravi the husband and Sayma the mother-in-law of

¶17

BAIL No. 38776 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

the deceased. Previously a charge sheet dated 19.11.2024 was submitted against the Ravi the husband of the deceased whereas investigation was pending against other co-accused persons, copies of both the charge sheet is annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit. Co-accused Smt. Sayma the mother-in-law and Ravi the husband of the deceased have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Applications Nos. 17196 of 2025 (Smt. Sayma Vs. State of U.P.) and 25523 of 2025 (Ravi Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 10 to the affidavit.

¶20

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.05.2025.

¶21

(viii) Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Ravi the husband and Sayma the mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail.

¶22

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The FIR has been lodged after 12 days of the incident and the delay in lodging of the same is unexplained. Co-accused Ravi the husband and Sayma the mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail.

¶23

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.

¶24

Let the applicant Uma Shankar , 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

(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

¶29

BAIL No. 38776 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶32

(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 313 Cr.P.C. 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

The bail application is allowed .

¶36

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

¶37

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶38

November 6, 2025 M. ARIF

¶39

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

Uma Shankar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shankar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj vs State of U.P.

Prem Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Samina vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Smt Suman Devi vs State of U.P.

Laungsri vs State of U.P.