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

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in F.I.R No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Mallawan District Hardoi.

¶13

While pressing the present application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant, who is having no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 09.01.2026, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case.

¶14

It is stated that applicant-Sarita, wife of Jitendra, resident of Purwa Hema, Police Station Sahayal, District-Auraiya, is the Sister-in-law of the deceased Meena Devi, daughter of Shiv Kumar Singh, resident of Atwa, Police Station-Safipur, District-Unnao.

¶15

It is stated that marriage of the deceased Meena Devi was solemnized with the Vipin Singh, son of Mahendra Pratap Singh on 07.07.2022 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Meena Devi (deceased) died on 09.08.2025 within the jurisdiction of Police Station-Mallawan, District-Hardoi.

¶16

It is further submitted that from the post-mortem report, a copy whereof

¶17

BAIL No. 945 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the present bail application, it can be inferred that the deceased had committed suicide as after due medical examination, the autopsy surgeon has opined that the cause of death is 'Asphyxia' due to 'Ante-mortem Hanging.'

¶20

A perusal of an FIR would indicate that only bald and vague allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry have been levelled by the informant, who is the father of the deceased, with a view to falsely implicate all the accused persons, including the present applicant.

¶21

The Hon'ble Apex Court has also deprecated the practice to implicate all the family members in dowry cases. Reference in this regard has been made on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 10 SCC 741; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599; Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759; Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473; Safiya Bano Alias Shakira and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 222 and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127.

¶22

It is further stated that the present case is purely a case of suicide and 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".

¶23

It is further stated that considering that it is case of suicide and the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 and Geo

¶24

BAIL No. 945 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) SCC Online SC 873 , the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶27

It is further contended that considering the facts of the case, the allegations levelled in the F.I.R with regard to demand of dowry and cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, which infact are bald and vague as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements including the judgments, referred above and also that the case of the applicant is of separate living and also taking note of the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

It is further stated that similarly situated co-accused namely Jitendra @ Ranu Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1735 of 2026.

¶29

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.

¶30

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also the judgments, referred above, and also taking note that the case of the applicant is of separate living and also the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, as also that co-accused has already released on bail by this Court and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶31

Let the applicant- Sarita be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member/close

¶32

BAIL No. 945 of 2026

¶33

4

¶34

relative, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶39

(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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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 observation made in this order.

¶45

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶46

March 12, 2026/arti-

¶47

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagywati vs Shri Nikhil Tikaram Funde, Distt. Magistrate Ayodhya

Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs Dr. Brijendra Singh, v.C., Acharya Narendra Dev Agriculture and Tech. University, Ayodhya

Vivek Vikram Singh vs Kumar Harsh Dist. Magistrate Dist. Sultanpur

Imran Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mina Kumari vs Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. and 3 Others

Gauri Shankar Gupta vs Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others