Salma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

Salma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Salma to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number (Case Crime No. 5 of 2026) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to eight conditions: cooperation with prosecution during trial; no tampering with evidence; no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses; not committing an offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tamper with evidence; remaining present before the trial court on each fixed date personally or through counsel; not seeking adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present; and personal presence before the trial court on dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Default of conditions may be treated by the trial court as abuse of liberty of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Salma (mother-in-law of the deceased), involved in Case Crime No. 5 of 2026 under sections 80(2), 85 of the B.N.S., old Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Katra Bazar, District Gonda, is entitled to enlargement on bail.

Court's answer

Prima facie, the applicant is a lady and only general allegations have been made against her and her family members, a pattern the Court notes was deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra).

Ratio / Principle

As per the medical report, the cause of death shown is 'Asphyxia' due to ante mortem hanging, which prima facie does not corroborate the story in the FIR and the statement of the informant.

Key takeaways

Per the settled law relied upon (Mangat Ram (supra)), there are several causes or reasons for a woman to commit suicide.ratio¶¶20
There is no eyewitness of the incident.ratio¶¶20
The applicant was living separately along with other family members, whereas the deceased was living separately with her husband.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH), COURT NO. 13 (Manish Kumar, J.): Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2905 of 2026 — ALLOWED (decided May 14, 2026). Applicant SALMA, stated to be the mother-in-law of the deceased, sought bail in Case Crime No. 5 of 2026, P.S. Katra Bazar, District Gonda — FIR dated 12.01.2026 under Sections 85, 80(2) of the B.N.S. (old Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC) and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against five named accused — following the death by hanging of the informant's sister on 11.01.2026; she had married co-accused Faizan on 10.06.2024, and an alleged Rs. 5 lakh dowry demand and harassment were narrated. Prima facie grounds found for bail: (i) applicant is a lady facing only general allegations along with her family members, which the Court noted stands deprecated per Geeta Mehrotra, (2012) 10 SCC 741; (ii) post-mortem cause of death 'Asphyxia' due to ante mortem hanging prima facie does not corroborate the FIR story or informant's statement, consonant with the settled law in Mangat Ram, (2014) INSC 214 (several causes for a woman to commit suicide); (iii) no eyewitness of the incident; (iv) applicant lived separately from the deceased (parivar register annexed as S.A. 1). Counsel had also cited Payal Sharma (SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024) urging caution with exaggerated all-family-member allegations in matrimonial complaints; the learned AGA opposed bail but did not dispute the counsel's submissions or case law. Released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions, including personal presence for Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement; the Court clarified that its observations bear no weight on the merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2905 of 2026

Salma

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., B/R1790, Rahul Kumar Shukla

Court No. - 13

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Learned A.G.A has filed counter affidavit and learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same are taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 5 of 2026, under sections 80(2), 85 of the B.N.S. (old Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Katra Bazar, District- Gonda is seeking enlargement on bail.

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 12.01.2026 under Sections 85, 80 (2) of the B.N.S. (old Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC) and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been lodged against five named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that marriage of sister of informant was solemnized on 10.06.2024 with co-accused Faizan. For one year, the things were going on smoothly but after one year all the accused persons including applicant started harassing the deceased mentally and physically and demanding Rs. 5 lakh as dowry. On 11.01.2026, he received information that his sister has committed suicide by hanging herself.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. In the FIR, only general allegation has 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.

BAIL No. 2905 of 2026

2

It is further submitted that applicant is living separately alongwith other family members whereas deceased was living separately with her husband and in support of his submission, he has drawn attention of this Court to parivar register, which is annexed as S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit.

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.

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.

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

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.

Considering the submissions of the respective counsels and going through the record of the case, prima-facie, it is found that applicant is a lady and there are general allegations against her and her family members, which has been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra); as per the 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 eyewitness of the incident; applicant was living separately alongwith other family members whereas deceased was living separately with her husband, thus, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

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

BAIL No. 2905 of 2026

3

conditions:-

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

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

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

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

(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.

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

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

(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.

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.

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.

May 14, 2026 DiVYa

(Manish Kumar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench