Sarojni Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sarojni Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail for applicants Sarojni Devi and Vandana @ Ganga till submission of the charge sheet / conclusion of investigation; in the event of arrest, release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, subject to the five listed conditions, breach of which is a ground for cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants, Sarojni Devi and Vandana @ Ganga, accused in Case Crime No. 286 of 2025 (Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri) under Sections 191(2), 115(2) and 108 B.N.S., are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS till submission of the charge sheet. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the nature of accusations and the gravity of offence, the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail till submission of the charge sheet, as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi).

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned, subject to the conditions set out in the judgment (availability for interrogation; no inducement/threat/promise to dissuade disclosure; no departure from India without permission; no tampering with prosecution evidence or intimidating/pressurising witnesses; no indulgence in criminal activity).

Key takeaways

The court expressly made no determination of the merits (including whether the alleged conduct attracts Section 108 B.N.S.); the grant rests solely on the nature of accusations and gravity of offence.obiter¶10
Breach of any of the prescribed conditions shall constitute a ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 69; Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.), decision dated October 17, 2025 — Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 8190 of 2025 (Sarojni Devi and Vandana @ Ganga vs. State of U.P. and Another). The applicants, sought to be arrested in Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri, under Sections 191(2), 115(2) and 108 B.N.S., were held entitled to anticipatory bail till submission of the charge sheet, as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. Counsel had contended that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the first informant's statement showed only that, because of a matrimonial dispute, the applicants scolded the deceased — insufficient, in counsel's view, for the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. — and that the applicants were falsely implicated as mother-in-law and wife of the deceased; the court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits and granted anticipatory bail solely on the nature of accusations and gravity of offence. In the event of arrest, release was ordered till conclusion of investigation on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, with conditions requiring availability for interrogation, abstention from inducement/threat/promise to dissuade disclosure, no departure from India without previous permission, no tampering with prosecution evidence or intimidation/pressurising of witnesses, and no indulgence in criminal activity; breach of any condition was declared a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail. The application stands disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8190 of 2025

Sarojni Devi And Another	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rakesh Kumar	Kumar	Rathore, Sanjeev
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 69

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been filed by the applicants seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest in Case Crime No. 286 of 2025 under section 191(2), 115(2), 108 B.N.S., Police Station - Kurawali, District - Mainpuri.

Contention of counsel for the applicants is that from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the first informant, it is clear that because of matrimonial dispute, the applicants scolded the deceased which would not be sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S., and the applicants have been falsely implicated merely because applicant No.1 is mother-in-law and applicant No.2 is wife of the deceased.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations as well as gravity of offence, the applicants are entitled to get anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

In the event of arrest, the applicant s Sarojni Devi and Vandana @ Ganga , involved in the aforesaid crime, shall be released on anticipatory

NABAIL No. 8190 of 2025

2

bail till conclusion of investigation on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation.

(v) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

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

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the application stands disposed of .

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

October 17, 2025

Vandana

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad