Nagma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Case Crime No.380 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) B.N.S., and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station -Kaiserganj, District – Bahraich.

¶13

For the purposes of entertaining the present application and protecting the interest of the applicant(s) namely Nagma wife of Raju and daughter of Ashfaq Ali and Raju son of Jaleel, both resident of Patelnagar, Police Station-Ikauna, District Shravasti, this Court considered the facts as indicated including the following:-

¶14

(i) The applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶15

(ii) The marriage of Rabiya, daughter of Munna and sister of informant, was solemnized with Salman, son of Kallu, as per Muslim rites and rituals about five years ago from the date of lodging of F.I.R. in issue.

¶16

(iii) The applicant no.1 Nagma is real sister of Salman, husband of deceased Rabiya and applicant no.2 Raju is husband of applicant no.1 and

¶17

NABAIL No. 450 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

brother-in-law of deceased Rabiya.

¶20

(iv) The applicants are residents of the place of which the informant is resident i.e. Patel Nagar, Police Station-Ikauna, District-Shravasti.

¶21

(v) The cause of death is 'Asphyxia' due to 'Ante-mortem Hanging', which is based upon the injury noted by the autopsy surgeon.

¶22

This Court also considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant according to which the tendency to implicate the entire family members of the husband by making bald and vague allegations has been repeatedly deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements such as Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 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.

¶23

This Court also took note of 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), as per which "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".

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that the applicants shall cooperate in the trial.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel.

¶26

Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the applicants are entitled

¶27

NABAIL No. 450 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

to interim protection.

¶30

Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant-Nagma and Raju be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties, one shall be the family member/close relative of the accused-applicants each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶31

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

¶32

(ii) That the accused-applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within three working days.

¶36

List/put up this case on 23.03.2026, in top 20 cases along with service report.

¶37

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit.

¶38

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶39

March 12, 2026

¶40

Arti/-

¶41

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

Nagma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

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

Arvind Kumar Mishra vs Mrs. Sadhika Katiyar, Labour Commissioner Kanpur U.P. and Another

X, Juvenile (Minor) Thru. Her Natural Guardian / Mother Z vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Anuradha Devi vs Shri Sunil Dutt, Dist. Inspector of School Unnao

Centre for Management Tech. Thru. Its Director Krishna Mohan Pandey and Another vs Sri L. Venkateshwaralu Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko. and Another

Smt. Nandini Sadashiv Dubey and Another vs Shri Vijay Ranjan Srivastava Naib Tehsildar Sumerpur Unnao

Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others