Kiran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

By means of this application preferred under Section 483 BNSS, the applicant, who is involved in Crime No. 455/2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 123, 115(2) of BNS (old Sections 304-B, 498-A, 328, 323 of IPC) & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Phool Behad, District Lakhimpur Kheri is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶10

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 07.09.2025 has been lodged under Sections 80(2), 85, 123, 115(2) of BNS (old Sections 304-B, 498-A, 328, 323 of IPC) & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against three named accused persons including the present applicant (the mother in law of the deceased) alleging therein that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with named accused person (Uttam Kumar). On 04.09.2025, the informant received a phone call that her daughter has consumed poison and she has been admitted in Lucknow Medical College and when the informant reached the hospital along with his relatives on 06.09.2025, he found that his daughter has already expired. The named accused persons used to harass her daughter for demand of dowry and they killed her by giving poison.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged against all the family members by making general and omnibus allegations and has falsely been implicated the whole family including the present applicant, who is mother in law of the deceased.

¶12

It is further submitted that the informant, who was P.W.1 before the trial court has given statement that the sasuraljan of his daughter had neither demanded any dowry nor they have physically or mentally tortured his daughter and poison was not given by them. It is further stated by the informant before the trial court that his daughter consumed poison in anger when her husband i.e. son in law of the informant refused to take her to Dehradun on the same day and told her that tomorrow i.e. next day, we will go

¶13

BAIL No. 2738 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

to Dehradun. She was hospitalized by her sasuraljan in Lucknow Medical College and when the informant reached the hospital, they were present there.

¶16

It is further submitted that the DGC had given an application that the prosecution witness has become hostile and wants to cross examine him and in the cross examination, the informant has repeated the same thing, which he has stated at the time of his examination in chief, so he has become hostile and except that, there is no other evidence/material found by the police during the investigation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that general allegations have been made against all the family members including the present applicant, 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 dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication.

¶18

It is further submitted that the there is no injury shown on the body of the deceased. It is a case of suicide. 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.

¶19

It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by 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.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant is an old lady having no criminal history and she is in jail since 10.01.2026.

¶21

Learned AGA on the basis of instructions received opposes the prayer for bail but unable to dispute that the informant has become hostile. The certified copies of the proceedings of the trial court has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit. He is also unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant factually as well as on the basis of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶22

After considering the submissions of the respective counsels it is found that mainly the applicant and other family members were made accused on the basis of statement of the informant i.e. P.W.1; the informant has become hostile; applicant is an old lady and is in jail since 10.01.2026; there are general and omnibus allegations against the family members, which is not appreciated by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra);

¶23

BAIL No. 2738 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

there was no injury on the body of the deceased; it is a case of suicide; 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; thus, prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶27

Let the applicant- Kiran be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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

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.

¶38

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶39

April 17, 2026

¶40

Nitesh

¶41

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kiran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Ramdutt Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ahmad Raza @ Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.of Home Lko.

Mahfooz @ Bhindi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Lko.

Lal Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Hassan Khan (in the First Fir as Hassan ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Juvenile a Minor Thru. His Guardian/Father Complaint Case No. 04/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others