Dismissed¶18

Smt. Sushila v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025BAIL/40549/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; bail rejected; Section 483 BNSS; Smt. Sushila; mother-in-law of deceased; Case Crime No. 286 of 2025; Sections 85, 80(2), 238, 352, 3(5) BNS; 3/4 D.P. Act; P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor; dowry demand; torture; strangulation murder; clandestine cremation; no post-mortem; cause of death unascertained; charge sheet No. 206/2025 dated 28.08.2025; Section 480 BNSS pleaded; Samit Gopal, J.; November 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is named in the FIR; the deceased died in her matrimonial house; there is an allegation of demand of dowry and torture by the applicant and other co-accused; and the deceased was cremated by the accused. ¶16

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Smt. Sushila, mother-in-law of the deceased, should be enlarged on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 286 of 2025 under Sections 85, 80(2), 238, 352, 3(5) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, arising from the alleged murder and clandestine cremation of the deceased Rubi.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

¶16

Key takeaways

No information was given by the accused to the police or even to the first informant, and no post-mortem examination was done, so the actual cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained.ratio¶16
No ground for bail is made out; the Court does not find it a fit case for bail.ratio¶16
Considering the totality of the case, in particular the nature of evidence available on record, the Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under Section 483 BNSS rejected. Applicant Smt. Sushila, mother-in-law of the deceased Rubi, sought enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 286 of 2025 (Sections 85, 80(2), 238, 352, 3(5) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor), arising from the alleged strangulation murder of Rubi on 26.07.2025 and her clandestine cremation by the accused. FIR was lodged on 27.07.2025 by the deceased's father Madho Ram; charge sheet No. 206/2025 dated 28.08.2025 was filed against the applicant and other co-accused. The Court noted that the applicant is named in the FIR, the deceased died in her matrimonial house, there were allegations of dowry demand and torture, and that the accused gave no information of the death to the police or to the first informant, so no post-mortem could fix the actual cause of death. Held: no ground for bail is made out; not a fit case for bail. Bail application rejected; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40549 of 2025

¶2

Smt. Sushila

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposit
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anurag Shrivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 66

¶5

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Anurag Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, 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. Sushila , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 238, 352, 3(5) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor.

¶10

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 27.07.2025 by Madho Ram against the applicant and Mukul alleging therein that his daughter Rubi was married to Mukul on 06.02.2024. After marriage the accused were not happy with gifts and dowry given in it and there was a demand of a motorcycle from her. His daughter made a complaint at the Mahila Police Station on 14.05.2024 after which the parties entered into a settlement but still the accused did not change their attitude and continued to torture and assault her. Since last 8 months, the informant and his daughter were not going to their house and the accused did not let his daughter talk with him. On 27.07.2025 in the morning he received an information from the people of village that his daughter has been murdered. When he reached her matrimonial house it came to be known that on 26.07.2025 the accused murdered her by strangulating her and have also cremated her in a clandestine manner. Around 20 days prior she had given birth to a girl child which was also not communicated to the informant by the accused. Report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that after birth of a child, the deceased became ill and after treatment she died a natural death, para 20 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that the

¶12

BAIL No. 40549 of 2025

¶13

¶14

informant was present during cremation as would be apparent from the fact that he took the Investigating Officer to the place where the deceased was cremated and thus he was very well in the knowledge of the cremation and thus had shown him the said place. It is submitted that charge sheet No. 206/2025 dated 28.08.2025 has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused, para 23 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. Further while placing para 18 and annexure 6 to the affidavit it is submitted that the villagers have stated that the deceased became unwell and since she was carrying infection due to which she died she was cremated. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.07.2025.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that although the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased but she is named in the FIR and there are allegations against her. It is submitted that the deceased was cremated without information to the informant or his family members. It is further submitted that since the deceased was cremated and no information was given by the accused even to the police, the cause of death could not be ascertained and thus it cannot be said that the present incident is a case of natural death. It is further submitted that the alleged villagers whose statements are being placed, are not the witnesses of the charge sheet. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

¶16

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. There is an allegation of demand of dowry and torture by the applicant and other co-accused. The deceased has been cremated by the accused. It cannot be said that no information was given to the police and authorities and no postmortem examination was done which could suggest as what was the actual cause of death of the deceased. No information was given by the accused to the police or even to the first informant. No ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

¶17