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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and Vakalatnama filed by Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of the complainant are taken on record.

¶11

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

¶12

3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.34 of 2026, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Motiganj, District - Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and she is in jail since 16.04.2026. He further submits that marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant and son of the applicant is residing at Mauritius and Bangalore in relation to his business. He also submits that daughter-in-law of the applicant committed suicide by hanging and the information was also given to the family members of the deceased, thereafter, F.I.R. in question was lodged, in which, it is alleged that husband of the deceased was harassing her on phone and general allegations have been levelled against rest of the family members. He further submits that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, aged about 50 years, she does not

¶14

BAIL No. 4193 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

have any criminal antecedent. He further submits that she will not involve in any illegal activities in the future. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of bail, but they do not dispute the fact that cause of death is hanging and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant.

¶18

6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, it is evident that specific allegations have been levelled against the husband of deceased, however, applicant is mother-in-law of the applicant, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

7. Let applicant - Shushma Devi - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on her furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶21

(ii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her

¶24

BAIL No. 4193 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS.

¶27

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 BNS, may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/209 BNS.

¶28

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNS. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶29

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶30

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶31

June 11, 2026 GauraV/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Devi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Surendra Kumar Sharma Alias Salikram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ramshree vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Ahmad @ Saffauwwa vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Siyaram Bind vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko