Soorya Kali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/Case Crime No. 0007 of 2026, under Sections - 80(2), 85 B.N.S (old Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C) and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station -Tarabganj, District- Gonda.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant by passing order dated 24.03.2026, for convenience, the order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶14

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and the counsel for

¶15

the complainant.

¶16

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS has been filed by the accused-applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 0007 of 2026, under Sections 80(2) BNS/304 B IPC and Section 85 BNS / 498A I.P.C. and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda.

¶17

3. According to the version in the FIR dated 5.1.2026 lodged against the five named accused persons including the present applicant that the daughter of the informant was married to named accused Ramesh Kumar and all the family members including the husband were demanding dowry and when it was not fulfilled, they had killed the daughter of the informant.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that by making general

¶19

NABAIL No. 409 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

allegation, whole of the family has falsely been implicated in the present case including the present applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, a 56 years old lady.

¶22

5. It is further submitted that as per inquest report the room was locked from inside and after breaking open the door she was found hanging from the ceiling. It is a case of suicide.

¶23

6. It is further submitted that except the general allegations and statements, there is no any other specific allegation against the applicant and other family members and the investigation is still going on.

¶24

7. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Badahin Purawa, Udwat Nagar, Umrapur Chauhan, District - Gonda and there is no chance of her absconding. It is also submitted that she will cooperate with the investigation by the police.

¶25

8. 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.

¶26

9. In the said judgement the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 has also been relied, 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. The said judgment also relied upon the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sanam and Others vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein it has been held that so far as family members of the husband on the ground that the allegations against them are general and omnibus in nature, the proceedings should be quashed. Here in the present case the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.

¶27

10. In compliance of the earlier order of this Court, the Investigating Officer is present before this Court in person and has filed a counter affidavit, which is taken on record. He has also filed transcription of pen drive provided by the husband of the deceased regarding conversation of the deceased and her husband in a sealed cover, which has been opened in the Court and the same is kept on record, which also shows that there was no harassment of the deceased for dowry demand. She has committed suicide because of some persons, namely, Nankai and Bhole.

¶28

NABAIL No. 409 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

11. On the other hand learned A.G.A. and Shri Lalu Prasad Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail but are unable to dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the complainant prays for two weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

¶31

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the allegations against all the family members are general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific allegation against the applicant and as per the law settled in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sanam (Supra), wherein it has been held that without allegations of active involvement in the matter, it would not be justified to take cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication.

¶32

13. As per the judgment in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0949/2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him.

¶33

14. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1349, the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶34

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and looking into the circumstances, it is found that there is a case registered against the applicant with general and omnibus in nature and it cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend the applicant. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. It is also found that in the present case the chargesheet has yet not been filed. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused has not been properly comprehended; the applicant has not previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by the Court; as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant there is no possibility of her fleeing from the judicial proceedings and in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court finds it a fit case to issue an interim order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS, till further orders of this Court.

¶35

NABAIL No. 409 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

16. In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant, Soorya Kali be released forthwith in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶38

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶39

(ii). That the accused-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; and

¶40

(iii). That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶41

17. The papers regarding bail submitted to the police officer on behalf of the accused/applicant shall form part of the case diary and would be submitted to the court concerned along with same at the time of submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶42

18. In case there is breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be cancelled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

¶43

19. As prayed by learned counsel for the complainant, two weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit.

¶44

20. List this case in the week commencing 20.04.2026"

¶45

On the other hand, learned A.G.A, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, has submitted that nothing new has been brought on record which may controvert the grounds on which ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant by this Court.

¶46

Upon due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the ad-interim bail granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed and the present anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of order dated 24.03.2026 while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant Soorya Kali till disposal of the trial, the applicant shall appear before the court concerned and furnish bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial/concerned Court/ Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions :-

¶47

NABAIL No. 409 of 2026

¶48

5

¶49

(i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and shall not abscond;

¶50

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

¶51

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶52

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶53

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶54

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶55

April 29, 2026 DiVYa

¶56

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶57

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

Soorya Kali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soorya Kali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

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

Rai Ravindra Kishor Srivastava vs Rajeev Kumar, the Chief Engineer (E-3) U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Lko. and Another

Fazrul Rahman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Virendra Singh vs Sri Vaibhav Srivastava Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.

Amrit Lal Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ramapati Maurya vs Shri Umesh Chandr Yadav Presently Posted Tehsildar Kadipur Sultanpur and Another