Vineeta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2025, under Sections- 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ramkot, District-Sitapur.

¶12

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶13

It is further submitted that the Arpit, son of the applicant namely Vineeta and Anjani Rawat (the deceased) were in an affair and this fact can be inferred from the fact that both solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir, Shivpuri Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow, on 27.04.2025. Reference in this regard has been made to Annexure No. 2 of the bail application, which is a copy of the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Shivpuri Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow.

¶14

In continuation to above, it is stated that the fact that the marriage of Arpit, son of the applicant, and the deceased was love marriage can also be inferred from the order of this Court dated 02.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3714 of 2025 filed by Anjani Rawat (the deceased) and another (Arpit Kumar). The order dated 02.05.2025 referred is extracted herein under:-

¶15

"1. Heard Sri Shikhar Bora, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned

¶16

counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶17

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for issuance of mandamus

¶18

commanding the opposite parties not to harass the petitioners and interfere in their peaceful married life.

¶19

3. Petitioners claim to have married each other of their own volition and also claim that on

¶20

BAIL No. 1031 of 2026

¶21

2

¶22

the date of their marriage i.e. 27.04.2025 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Arya Samaj Mandir, Shivpuri Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow. The marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner no.1 has annexed her High School Marksheet and Aadhar Card and petitioner no.2 has annexed his 'Aadhar Card' and High School Marksheet with regard to the proof of age as Annexure-2 and 3 to the writ petition, respectively. They are enjoying and living peaceful matrimonial life.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no F.I.R. against the petitioners and they are not wanted in any criminal case yet the police is harassing them at the behest of family members who are not agreeable to the marriage. Therefore, this petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful married life of the petitioners.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for petitioners also undertakes to get the marriage of petitioners registered under the U.P. Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within a period of four weeks.

¶25

6. In view of the aforesaid fact, the case for consideration is made out.

¶26

7. Issue notice to the opposite party no.4.

¶27

8. Office shall submit service report by affixing computer generated tracking report.

¶28

9. Learned A.G.A. is directed to complete his instructions.

¶29

10. List this case after four weeks.

¶30

11. Meanwhile, it is provided that if the petitioners have married each other and are living together, were of marriageable age on the date of their marriage and they are not wanted

¶31

in any criminal case, then the police shall not unnecessarily interfere in their peaceful married life. "

¶32

It is further stated that applicant having no criminal history is in jail since 24.12.2025, only on account of the fact that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

¶33

It is further submitted that it is case of suicide. The deceased committed suicide for the reasons best known to her. At this stage, reference is made to the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, who has opined that the caused of death is "Asphysixa" due to "Ante motem Handing".

¶34

Further submissions is that the tendency to implicate the entire family members of the husband by making bald and vague allegations has been repeatedly deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements such as Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473, Safiya Bano Alias Shakira and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 222 and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC

¶35

BAIL No. 1031 of 2026

¶36

3

¶37

OnLine SC 127.

¶38

This Court also took note of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, decided on 27-5-2008 (P&H), as per which " A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment".

¶39

It is further submitted that the applicant needs proper treatment, which is not available in the jail, as she is suffering from a brain tumor.

¶40

On being asked, the learned A.G.A provided a copy of the Office of the Superintendent, District Jail, Sitapur, dated 17.03.2026, which is taken on record. The said instructions support the submissions made by the learned counsel for the application related illness of the applicant..

¶41

It is submitted that considering aforesaid, the applicant, who is in jail since 24.12.2025, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel .

¶43

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note that the applicant is a lady and is suffering from brain tumor and also the fact that the applicant having no criminal history, is in jail since 24.12.2025 and also the marriage of co-accused Arpit and deceased was love marriage and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶44

Let the applicant- Vineeta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶45

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶46

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶47

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶48

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶49

BAIL No. 1031 of 2026

¶50

4

¶51

(v) The applicant 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶52

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶53

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶54

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶55

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶56

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶57

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶58

March 17, 2026 Preeti

¶59

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vineeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajan Singh Alias Rajwant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Noor Jahan Khan vs Shri Haratheesh H.a., Addl. General Manager/Unit Head Iti Ltd. Raibareli and Another

Sahdev @ Sahadev and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Megh Nand and 5 Others vs Smt. Aparna Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Sunita vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Prakash Singh vs Mr. Amit Kumar Singh Director Panchayatiraj Vibhag U.P. Lko. and Another