Dismissed

Muniya Devi Alias Munni Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025BAIL/42896/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected (dismissed) — Allahabad HC, Court No. 66, Samit Gopal J., 10.12.2025; applicant Muniya Devi alias Munni Devi (mother-in-law), jail since 17.8.2025; Case Crime No. 94 of 2025, PS Shahganj, Dist. Sonbhadra; FIR 14.8.2025 by Rajesh Prasad Keshari; Sections 80(2), 85, 61(2)(a), 92, 238 B.N.S. + 3/4 D.P. Act; Section 483 B.N.S.S. bail application; charge sheet submitted; dowry

What the court decided

AI extract

Muniya Devi Alias Munni Devi vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42896 of 2025

¶2

Muniya Devi Alias Munni Devi

¶3

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Pramod Kumar Srivastava G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 66

¶5

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submits that he has received instructions for which time was prayed which was allowed on 04.12.2025.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Muniya Devi Alias Munni Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 94 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 61(2)(a), 92, 238 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shahganj, District- Sonbhadra.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 14.8.2025 by Rajesh Prasad Keshari against the applicant and 4 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Smt. Kajal Keshari was solemnized with Shubham Keshari@Bhanu the son of the applicant on 10.12.2024. After marriage the accused persons together started torturing her for less dowry and used to taunt and abuse her. There was a demand of Rs.5 lakh and a car from her. They used to say that if demand is not fulfilled they would marry Subham again. In the meantime his daughter became pregnant and they used to taunt her that by giving birth to the child expense in the house would increase. On 13.8.2025 at about he received an information that his daughter is unconscious. When he reached there, found his daughter to be dead. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing para-22 and 23 of the affidavit that the deceased was suffering from chronic mental disease and she was

¶12

BAIL No. 42896 of 2025

¶13

¶14

under treatment and due to the said reason the deceased committed suicide herself and died. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicant are totally false and concocted without any substance. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant, para-32 and 33 of the affidavit in support of bail application have been placed for the same. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.8.2025.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against her and the other accused of torturing, harassment and demand of dowry to the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received ligature mark on her body and the doctor conducting post mortem examination found the uterus to be gravid which shows that the deceased was carrying pregnancy and further opined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of antemortem ligature strangulation. It is submitted that since the cause of death is strangulation the same is not consistent with suicide. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another: 2025 INSC 307.

¶16

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The deceased was found to be carrying pregnancy as the uterus was found to be gravid. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem ligature strangulation.The case of the applicant is that the deceased committed suicide but the same is not consistent with the post mortem examination report.

¶17

Looking to the nature of injuries and the opinion given therein strangulation is a situation which cannot in any manner be found in a case of suicide, various persons are involved in it. The Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another: 2025 INSC 307, has stated that granting of bail in such matters has to be considered seriously looking to the gravity of offence. Paragraph 15 of the said judgement reads as under:-

¶18

"15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to

¶19

BAIL No. 42896 of 2025

¶20

¶21

undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:

¶22

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (Chaman Lal v. State of UP.. (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974], Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]: Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286: (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 1368]: Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]

¶23

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the

¶24

BAIL No. 42896 of 2025

¶25

¶26

considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words: (SCC p. 224, para 24)

¶27

"24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court."

¶28

Considerations for setting aside bail orders

¶29

28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused."

¶30

10. In view of the above looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶31

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

¶32

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶33

December 10, 2025

¶34

Naresh

¶35

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

Muniya Devi Alias Munni Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Muniya Devi Alias Munni Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Kaila Devi Alias Kamlesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashoda vs State of U.P.

Dinesh vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Maurya Alias Jogendra Pal vs State of U.P.

Shiv Narayan Keshari vs State of U.P.

Shivam Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another