Allahabad High Court
Shama vs State Of U.P. on 17 September, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:166454
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31823 of 2025
Shama
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Swetashwa Agarwal, Yash Raj Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sushil Dubey
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.678 of 2025, under Sections 85, 89, 115(2), 110 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the injured person as per Muslim Rites on 11.1.2025, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of Rs. 2 crore as dowry, thereby assaulted her and caused injuries to her on 26.7.2025 at about 10:00 a.m.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the victim and there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. She has simply been made an accused on account of her relation with main accused person, who happens to be her son.
7. It is a clear cut case of manufacturing the injuries just to implicate the applicant and other family members. Initially, the victim was examined at Sudha Hospital on 27.7.2025 and no injury was observed on her body rather victim was stated to be nauseating and had complaint of body ache. Even it is mentioned in the said report that her husband had beaten her. There is no mentioning of applicant in the said medical report dated 27.7.2025. Had it been so, her name would have come up there only as only her husband has been mentioned in it.
8. There is ultrasound examination of the victim conducted on 29.7.2025, whereby no abnormality was seen in the said ultrasound report. Subsequently, another medical examination of the victim has been conducted at a government hospital i.e. SSMJ Hospital, Khurja, Bulandshahr on 31.7.2025, whereby five injuries have been observed by the doctor and even an injury in the middle of abdomen was also observed by him.
9. The FIR indicates that an attempt was made to strangulate the victim, but the medical report dated 31.7.2025 does not indicate a single injury on her neck, as such, the version has been changed. There is no evidence of applicant or other persons of the family of having caused miscarriage of the victim.
10. The collusion of the informant with the medical authorities at Khurja, Bulandshahr is but evident from the fact that subsequently the fracture on 8th rib of victim has also been observed, while there is no allegation of having caused any fracture in the FIR or anywhere else whatsoever.
11. On 26.7.2025, the victim was taken away by her brother from his house and the CCTV footage indicates that nothing untoward had happened at that time.
12. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) 5 SCC 799, whereby arrest of the applicant is illegal and even she has not been informed of the ground of arresting whatsoever.
13. Much reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shivangi Bansal vs. Sahib Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine Sc 1494, whereby it is held that in the dowry cases the FIR shall not be instituted directly.
14. Furthermore, learned counsel has also raised jurisdictional issue, whereby the incident is stated to have occurred at Delhi while the FIR has been instituted at Khurja, District Bulandshahr in collusion with the authorities by the informant just to keep the applicant and other family members incarcerated somehow or the other.
15. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.8.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:
16. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that injuries sustained by the injured person are grievous in nature. The informant or victim was not in collusion with the doctor. The said fallacy, if any, may be attributed to the doctor. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the victim, as such, she is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the referred judgments of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Shivangi Bansal (supra) and also the delay in institution of FIR coupled with the fact that applicant is the mother-in-law of the victim and there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
18. Let the applicant- Shama, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 17, 2025
Vikas Verma
