Vindrawati vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Yashwant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Vindrawati , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 280 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Farenda, District Maharajganj.

¶11

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 24.09.2025 by Jadawati Devi against the applicant and 05 other persons alleging therein that her granddaughter Goldi @ Pushpa was married to Amit Rao on 29.04.2025 in which she had given Rs. 2,60,000/- cash, a motorcycle, furniture and streedhan. When she went to her matrimonial house the accused started demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- as additional dowry and used to torture & assault her. She was having a pregnancy of 02 months and used to ask her husband and in-laws for getting her treated but they used to torture her. Panchayat was done but the accused did not stop their actions. On 22.09.2025 at about 8 am she received a phone from the deceased stating that she may be called home. When she asked about the reason she stated that the accused may murder her and in the meantime noise of assaulting her was being heard on the mobile and then mobile got switched off. After sometime she received a phone call of her relative informing her that her granddaughter has died. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-

¶13

BAIL No. 44576 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

in-law of the deceased Smt. Goldi @ Pushpa. She has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and all the accused persons. While placing paragraph 74 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is an elderly woman aged about 65 years. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased is in jail as stated in paragraph 45 of the affidavit. It is submitted that looking to the facts of the case that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, the husband of the deceased is in jail and the deceased was found to have received one injury being three contusions on her body which was the cause of her death, the bail of the applicant be allowed. The applicant is in jail since 30.10.2025.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations against her. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received injury on her person which are three contusions noted in the postmortem examination report and the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. It is submitted that strangulation is such a condition which is not consistent with suicide. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house.

¶17

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased but she is named in the first information report and there are allegations against her. The deceased was found to have received injury on her person which are three contusions on her body which are as under:-

¶18

"Injury No.1. Three contusions varying in size 1.5 to 2.5cm at the distance of 1.5cm each other over just below front of neck, below chin, dark in colour, on cutting clotted blood present underneath with engorgement of vessels on left side neck, trachea deeply congested having bloody froth."

¶19

The cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation.

¶20

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 U.P. & Another in SLP (Crl.) No. 15156 of 2024 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:-

¶21

"15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach

¶22

BAIL No. 44576 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

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 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:

¶25

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].]

¶26

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 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

BAIL No. 44576 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

"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."

¶30

Considerations for setting aside bail orders

¶31

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."

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

December 17, 2025 AS Rathore

¶35

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vindrawati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindrawati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Babu @ Titu vs State of U.P.

Anil vs State of U.P.

Abhishek vs State of U.P.

Ravi Satija vs State of U.P. and Another

Saniya vs State of U.P.

Kapil Rajput vs State of U.P.