Dismissed¶17

Uma Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2026NABAIL/870/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; Uma Devi; FIR/Case Crime No. 1005 of 2025; Section 108 BNS; old Section 306 IPC; Sections 115(2), 351(3), 123, 103(1) BNS; Police Station Kotwali Sadar; District Unnao; poisoning death of informant's son; harassment; police dropped other sections; specific allegations in FIR; informant's statement; not a fit case; extraordinary discretionary relief; application rejected; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 13; Manish Kumar J.; decided 14.05.2026; counsel Gargi Prakash Misra, Avinash Mishra, Sudhanshu Kumar Upadhyay, Sunita Srivastava; G.A. for State.

What did the court decide?

None; the anticipatory bail application was rejected. ¶17

Uma Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 870 of 2026

Uma Devi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gargi Prakash Misra, Avinash Mishra, Sudhanshu Kumar Upadhyay, Sunita Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant ( Uma Devi) in relation to FIR/Case Crime No. 1005 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S (old Section 306 I.P.C), Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District -Unnao.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 22.11.2025 has been lodged under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 123, 103(1) BNS against three named accused persons, including the present applicant alleging therein that the applicant, along with his brothers, used to mentally and physically harass the son of the informant. There are specific accusations regarding the nature of harassment caused to the deceased by the applicant. It is further alleged that all the three named accused persons gave poison to the son of the informant, due to which he died. The police, after investigation, dropped all other sections and proceeded with the investigation under Section 108 BNS (old Section 306 IPC) as some villagers, in their statements, had stated that the deceased consumed poison himself after being harassed by his wife.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case by the informant with oblique motive.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the FIR as well as in the statement of the informant.

¶14

NABAIL No. 870 of 2026

¶15

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, prima facie , it is found that specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the FIR as well as in the statement of the informant thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising the extraordinary discretionary relief of grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .

¶18

May 14, 2026 DiVYa

¶19

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶20

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

Uma Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Amjad Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Angad Gaud vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Suraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Devendra Singh @ Shiva Thakur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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