Smt Servesh Devi vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6976 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Servesh Devi vs State Of U.P. on 23 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145759
 

 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29113 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Servesh Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Niklank Kumar Jain
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Niklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.416 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 28.01.2024 and out of the wedlock, a baby was born. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry, thereby led her to death on 29.05.2025 at about 6:30 a.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about eleven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. The applicant and other family members had rushed the deceased person to hospital as she had committed suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 25.06.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, she is not entitled for bail.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

Order Date :- 23.8.2025

(Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)