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

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 30 of 2026, under sections 85/80 (2) of the BNS and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Padua, District- Kheri is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶12

The brief facts of the present case are that on 17.01.2026 an FIR has been lodged under Sections 85 and 80 (2) of the BNS (old Sections 498 A, 304 B of IPC) and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against four named accused persons alleging therein that daughter of the informant married to Amrish Kumar three years ago. The daughter of the informant was harassed by her husband, two jeths and one dewar physically and demanding a motorcycle and on non fulfillment of the same, on 17.01.2026 they had killed her daughter.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. She is not named in the FIR. Her name has been surfaced for the first time in the statement of the informant making same general allegation as it has been made to four co-accused named person, which has been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 wherein it has been held that the mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial

¶14

BAIL No. 2476 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication.

¶17

It is further submitted that the cause of death shown in the post mortem report is Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. At this juncture, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) INSC 214 wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide. There is no eye witness of the incident.

¶18

It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No.3995 of 2022 dated 26.11.2024 , wherein it has been observed that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated version of the incident are reflected by making allegation against all the family members and the Court should be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with such complaints.

¶19

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶20

It is further submitted that co-accused namely Bhagirath, whose name also surfaced for the first time in the statement of informant as the case of present applicant, has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1801 of 2026, wherein this Court has granted bail vide its order dated 13.03.2026, hence, the applicant is entitled for parity of bail. The bail order of the said co-accused has been provided to this Court during the course of argument by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶21

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for bail but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶22

Considering the submissions of the respective counsels it is found that there are general allegations against the family members, which has been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra); there was no injury on the body of the deceased; as per the

¶23

BAIL No. 2476 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

medical report cause of death shown is Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging, prima-facie, it does not corroborate with story in the FIR and the statement of informant; as per the settled law in the case of Mangat Ram (supra) wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide; there is no eye-witness of the incident; coaccused, against whom same material/evidence has been collected as that against the present applicant, has been granted bail by this Court, thus, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶27

Let the applicant- Jay Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(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.

¶36

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.

¶37

BAIL No. 2476 of 2026

¶38

4

¶39

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.

¶40

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶41

April 7, 2026 Ashish

¶42

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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

Devendra Singh @ Shiva Thakur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Sudheer Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 4 Others

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

Sudhakar Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Shyam Pyare @ Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.