Anand and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Heard Shri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants who have filed the bail application in this criminal appeal and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶13

The captioned criminal appeal has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Case No.125 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2020 registered under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Sandi, District- Hardoi whereby the appellants/applicants had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and had been sentenced for imprisonment of 8 years along with fine.

¶14

It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants that the Appellant No.2 is father-in-law and Appellant No.3 is mother-inlaw of the deceased. It has further been contended that only general role of demand of dowry had been assigned to the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants and they have not been specified any clinching role regarding the death of the deceased.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants has submitted that the deceased had died due to hanging and that fact finds support from the post-mortem report where the ligature mark has been found

¶16

CRLA No. 1430 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

around the neck of the deceased with a break. It has further been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had categorically held that where there is general role assigned to the family members of the husband in respect of the demand of dowry then the prosecution and trial of the husband would suffice.

¶19

It has also been submitted that Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants are aged about 80 years and 64 years respectively and they are in judicial custody since 10.04.2025. It has further been submitted that during trial, Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants were on bail and they have never misused the liberty of bail.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants for grant of bail.

¶21

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively and they have been assigned only a general role of demand of dowry. I further find that no specific role has been attributed to the Appellants No.2 &3/Applicants regarding death of the deceased.

¶22

It is noteworthy that Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants are 80 years and 64 years of age respectively and they were on bail during trial and have never misused the liberty of bail. It is further noteworthy that the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants are in judicial custody since 10.04.2025.

¶23

This Court finds that the appellants-applicants have not misused the liberty of bail at the time of trial and final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take some time.

¶24

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants are entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal.

¶25

Accordingly, the Trial Court / Competent Court is hereby directed to enlarge the Appellants No.2 & 3/Applicants, namely, Ram Sanehi and Binde Devi alias Vindeshwari on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond

¶26

CRLA No. 1430 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The fine, imposed by the trial court, shall be deposited by the Appellants No.2 &3/Applicants within a period of one month from their actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited.

¶30

(ii) The Appellants No.2 &3/Applicants shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶31

(iii) The Appellants No.2 &3/Applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶33

On acceptance of the bail bonds and the personal bonds, the court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶34

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶35

October 27, 2025

¶36

V. Sinha

¶37

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anand and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Naushad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shivam Dubey @ Golu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dilip Kumar Kashyap @ Pillur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kalam Khan @ Mohd. Kalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another