Rani Devi vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37326

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5359 of 2025 Applicant :- Rani Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S has been filed by the applicantRani Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.549 of 2024, under Sections 80 (2), 238, 85 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh.

¶8

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 17.10.2024 by Gavendra Kumar under Sections 85, 80, 238 of B.N.S, 2023 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant and Purushottam, the husband with the allegation that the marriage of his sisters Shyamlata and Nauvesh was solemnized on 11.3.2024 as per Hindu customs. His younger sister Nauvesh was a mentally challenged girl and was hard in hearing. Rani Devi, the mother-in-law and Purushottam, her husband used to taunt her for less dowry and there was a demand of additional dowry. The first informant and his family members went to her matrimonial house and tried to console her husband and mother-in-law but they did not agree to it. They on the greed of dowry murdered his sister Nauvesh by pressing her neck on 14.10.2024 at about 7.30 a.m. and in order to destroy the evidence, cremated the dead-body. The villagers of the village informed him on telephone after which he and his family members went there and have come to lodge the FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Purushottam, the husband of the deceased is in jail. There is no specific allegation against the applicant. It is argued that the deceased died natural death after which she was cremated in the presence of her family members. The FIR has been lodged subsequently with malafide intentions. The applicant is a lady and be given benefit of Section 480 of B.N.S.S., 2023. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.10.2024.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She and the husband of the deceased are accused in the present case. It is submitted that the

¶11

dead-body of the deceased was cremated and as such there is no evidence regarding the cause of her death. The dead-body was cremated by the accused persons just to shield their offence. Smt. Shakuntala, the mother of the deceased has in her statement recorded during investigation stated that the deceased had received injuries on her neck after which she was cremated, the same goes to show that the death was unnatural. It is submitted that C.C.T.V Footage also goes to show that the applicant was dragging the deceased. Looking to the facts of the case, nature of incident and gravity of offence, the present case is not a fit case for bail. He has placed before the Court a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another in SLP (Crl.) No.15156 of 2024, para 15 to buttress his arguments, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.

¶12

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She and Purushottam, the husband of the deceased are the only accused. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. There is an allegation of demand of dowry. The dead-body of the deceased was cremated and was not even subjected to postmortem examination. The cause of death could not be ascertained. The C.C.T.V. Footage shows the applicant dragging the deceased.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence and the nature of incident, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rani Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Devi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishwajeet vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Monu vs State of U.P.

Mukesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P.

Rajjo Alias Manjoo vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Sahani @ Bhabhuti Sahani vs State of U.P.