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

On a query being put, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, the learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case on merits, as such the Court proceeded to hear the instant application seeking bail.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶13

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime/FIR No. 346/2025, under Sections- 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Harpalpur, District- Hardoi.

¶14

While pressing the present application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law (Sas) of the deceased namely Ayushi, whose marriage was solemnized with Sujeet (son of the applicant) 5 years ago from the date of incident i.e. 22.10.2025 as indicated in the FIR.

¶15

It is further stated that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case based upon the bald and vague allegations to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 80(2), 85 B.N.S., akin to Sections- 304-B, 498A IPC (now repealed), and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶16

It is further stated that out of the wedlock of the deceased and Sujeet Kumar, there are two children namely Mohit (date of birth 22.05.2021), who on the date of incident was studying at Nigam Prathibha Prathmik Bal Vidhyalaya, Bharthal, New Delhi-110077 (Nazafgarh Area), and Manu (date of birth 02.06.2023).

¶17

It is further stated that a perusal of the FIR in issue would indicate that

¶18

BAIL No. 1956 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

bald and vague allegations have been levelled with regard to demand of dowry and committing cruelty against the deceased on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry related to one buffalo and Rs. One Lakh and this FIR also indicates that the ingredients to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section- 3/4 D.P. Act are missing.

¶21

It is further stated that it is a case of suicide and the reasons that as to why the deceased had committed suicide are not known to the applicant.

¶22

In continuation, it is also stated that a perusal of the copy of post-mortem report, on record as Annexure No. 6 to the instant bail application, would indicate that cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging, which opinion of the doctor concerned is based upon the injury No. 1 sustained by the deceased i.e. 'An oblique ligature mark 27c x 2.5 cm present all around the neck above thyroid cartilage in front of neck passing obliquely upwards and backwards along the line of mandible with gap of 3cm on lateral aspect of left side of neck. Ligature mark situated at 3cm below left ear and 5cm below right ear. Base of groove of ligature mark hard and parchment like' .

¶23

It is further stated that as per the 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), "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".

¶24

It is further stated that the applicant having no criminal history is languishing in jail since 14.11.2025 and taking note of the entire aspects of the case and also the post-mortem report, as per which cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging, the present application is liable to be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶26

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R. as also the fact that the applicant has not been previously convicted for any offence and he is in jail since 14.11.2025 as also the chances of conviction of the applicant in the instant case as well as that the applicant is the mother-in-law (Sas) of the deceased, this Court finds that the present applicant is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶27

Let the applicant- Santoshi Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member/close relative) each of the like

¶28

BAIL No. 1956 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶35

(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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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 observations made in this order.

¶41

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶42

March 18, 2026

¶43

Arun/-

¶44

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi Devi 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

Similar cases

Smt. Anita Dixit vs Sri Amit Kumar Ghosh, Prin. Secy. Medical Education and Training Lko. and Another

Shivam @ Shubham Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Kaushal Kishore @ Apradhi Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home and Confidential Lko.

Guddi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ajay Kumar Anand vs Sri Himanshu Kumar, Prin.Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shailendra Gangwar vs Dharmveer Singh, M.D. U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd., Lko.