Allahabad High Court
Sangeeta Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 22 April, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60195
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13127 of 2025
Applicant :- Sangeeta Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Divyansh Rai,Prabha Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the first informant files vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra and SriDivyansh Rai, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
4. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Sangeeta Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah.
5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 17.04.2024 by Hari Singh Yadav against the applicant, Prashant Yadav (husband), Devendra (father-in-law), Geeta (nand) and Rinku (servant) with the allegations that his daughter Kalpana was married to Prashant Yadav son of the applicant on 07.03.2024 as per Hindu rites and rituals. In the marriage after selling his plot he had given dowry Rs. 4,000,000/- and further Rs. 16 lakh was transferred by his another son-in-law Akshay Yadav in the bank account of Devendra the father-in-law of the deceased. After marriage the in-laws of the deceased tortured and harassed his daughter and there was a demand of a Creta car by the accused persons. Many times panchayat was called but there was no effect on them. On 17.04.2024 at about 06:13 am the deceased Kalpana called her elder sister and told her that her in-laws are assaulting her and they may murder her. Alok his nephew went to the house of his daughter to give card of the wedding of his sister at about 10:15 am wherein he found the dead body of Kalpana lying on the floor and Prashant/husband, Sangeeta Yadav the present applicant/mother-in-law and Geeta the nand were trying to run away from the house after which Alok informed the informant and other relatives on phone and apprehended Prashant on the spot. He saw injuries on her body and neck. The accused persons due to demand of dowry have murdered her daughter. Devendra Yadav is also in conspiracy. Geeta the nand mainly resides in her maternal house. Devendra Yadav had on mobile also demanded a car as dowry. Information about the incident was given to police on 112 number by Akshay the another son-in-law of the informant, after the police reached there and apprehended Prashant Yadav and Sangeeta Yadav the applicant. Report be lodged and action be taken.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing annexure 8 to the affidavit that the applicant was in her maternal house for which an affidavit dated 08.11.2024 has been given by Rajeev Yadav the nephew of the applicant. It is submitted that co-accused Rinku Sharma has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 36281 of 2024 (Rinku Sharma Vs. State of U.P.), further co-accused Devendra Kumar the father-in-law of the deceased has also been granted bail by the Sessions Judge concerned vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 2396 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the deceased and her husband were living separately and the applicant had no concern with them. It is submitted that the trial in the matter has started in which only one witness namely Hari Singh as PW-1 has been examined and as such looking to the number of witnesses, the trial would take time in its conclusion. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.04.2024.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations of demand of dowry, torture and harassment to the deceased against her. It is submitted that even the part of the dowry was sent in the bank account of co-accused father-in-law by the other son-in-law of the first informant. It is further submitted that the present case is a case of brutal murder in which the deceased has received 17 injuries and the cause of death is coma due to antemortem head injury however the viscera was preserved but the cause of death is conclusive as per postmortem examination report. It is further submitted that the said co-accused who have been granted bail, have distinction with that of the applicant inasmuch as Rinku Sharma is the house servant whereas Devendra Kumar the father-in-law has been granted bail on the ground of his alibi and being present in the office. It is submitted that the bail of Geeta Yadav the nand of the deceased has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 28231 of 2024 (Geeta Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
8. Learned counsel for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which one witness has been examined. It is further submitted that looking to the postmortem examination report, it is clear that the deceased was brutally murdered and the cause of death is coma due to antemortem head injury. It is further submitted that the present case is purely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another : SLP (Criminal) No. 15156 of 2024, decided on 03.03.2025 and while placing para 15 of the same has submitted that the gravity of the offence also needs to be looked into and there is nothing on record that the deceased died a natural death. It is submitted that the deceased died after 41 days of her marriage. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased Smt. Kalpana received 17 injuries on her person. The injuries are as under:
"1. CONTUSION OF SIZE 4X3CM ON LEFT SIDE OF FRONTO PARIETAL REGION.
2. CONTUSION OF SIZE 4.5X3CM ON RIGHT SIDE OF FRONTO PARIETAL REGION.
3. CONTUSION 3X2CM ON LATERAL SIDE OF RIGHT EYE.
4. ABRASION OF SIZE 0.5X0.5CM ON RIGHT SIDE OF CHEEK.
5. ABRASION OF SIZE 0.5X0.5CM ON LEFT SIDE OF CHIN.
6. MULTIPLE CONTUSION ON LEFT BACK OF EAR.
7. TRAUMATIC SWELLING ON LEFT SIDE OF FACE.
8. ABRASION 0.5X0.5CM ON RIGHT SIDE OF NECK.
9. ABRASION OF SIZE 1X0.5CM ON LEFT SIDE OF LOWER NECK.
10. CONTUSION 3X2CM LEFT UPPER ARM.
11. CONTUSION OF SIZE 6X5CM ON INNER SIDE OF LEFT ELBOW JOINT.
12. CONTUSION 4X5CM ON INNER SIDE OF RIGHT ELBOW JOINT.
13. CONTUSION OF SIZE 6X4CM ON RIGHT SIDE OF WAIST.
14. CONTUSION OF SIZE 8X4CM ON LEFT SIDE OF WAIST.
15. MULTIPLE ABRASION LEFT LEG AT SHIN OF TIBIA.
16. ABRASION 2X0.5CM ON LEFT ANTERIOR ASPECT OF ANKLE JOINT.
17. ABRASION 0.5X0.5CM ON ANTERIOR ASPECT OF FIRST AND SECOND FOOT FINGERS."
10. The cause of death has been opined by the doctor due to antemortem head injury however viscera was preserved but the cause of death is conclusive in itself. In so far as alibi of the applicant is concerned, the same is on the basis of an affidavit of Rajeev Yadav which is to be proved in the trial like any other evidence. The said co-accused who have been granted bail, are the house servant and father-in-law. The father-in-law has been granted bail on the ground that he was present in his office at BSF in Jammu and Kashmir, the same is thus distinguishable. The applicant was arrested on the spot by the police after being apprehended by the nephew of the first informant. The bail of co-accused Geeta Yadav has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2024. The said order reads as under:
"1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This first bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 & 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Jaswantnagar, District- Etawah, during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is sister-in-law of the deceased having no concern with the alleged incident. Applicant has specifically stated in para nos. 29 & 30 of the bail application that she is a married lady and she was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident. Applicant is languishing in jail since 17.04.2024 having no criminal history to her credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the brother of applicant on 07.03.2024 with Hindu Rites and Customs, thereafter, on 17.04.2024 deceased was murdered by named accused persons including the present applicant, on non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry. He next submitted that as per the Postmortem Report of the deceased, there are 17 injuries over the body of the deceased, which are as following:-
(1) Contusion of size 4X3cm on left side of fronto parietal region.
(2) Contusion of size 4.5X3cm on right side of fronto parietal region.
(3) Contusion 3X2cm on lateral side of right eye.
(4) Abrasion of size 0.5X0.5cm on right side of cheek.
(5) Abrasion of size 0.5X0.5cm on left side of chin.
(6) Multiple contusion on left back of ear.
(7) Traumatic swelling on left side of face.
(8) Abrasion 0.5X0.5cm on right side of neck.
(9) Abrasion of size 1X0.5cm on left side of lower neck.
(10) Contusion 3X2cm left upper arm.
(11) Contusion of size 6X5cm on inner side of left elbow joint.
(12) Contusion 4X5cm on inner side of right elbow joint.
(13) Contusion of size 6X4cm on right side of waist.
(14) Contusion of size 8X4cm on left side of waist.
(15) Multiple Abrasion left leg at shin of tibia.
(16) Abrasion 2X0.5cm on left anterior aspect of ankle joint.
(17) Abrasion 0.5X0.5cm on anterior aspect of first and second foot fingers.
6. Counsel for the informant next submitted that cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem head injuries, however, viscera was preserved. He next submitted that from the statements of other witnesses recorded during investigation, it is apparent that applicant was present on the spot at the time of alleged incident. He next submitted that the mediator, who got the marriage solemnized, namely, Alok Kumar, in her statement specifically stated that applicant (Geeta Yadav) was present in the house at the time of alleged incident and she was in haste to run away, as such, the applicant should not be released on bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statements of other witnesses, contents of first information report, medical examination report as well as postmortem report of the deceased and looking to seriousness and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, I do not find it is a fit case for bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Geeta Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime, is hereby rejected at this stage."
11. The deceased died unnatural death. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within 41 days of her marriage. The gravity of the offence also needs to be looked into and there is nothing on record that the deceased died a natural death. No ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
12. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
