[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shivani vs State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:25753
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2659 of 2026
Smt. Shivani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Alok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Crime No. 458 of 2026, under sections 85, 80 (2) of the BNS (corresponding Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC) and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khamaria, District- Lakhimpur Kheri is seeking enlargement on bail.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 12.09.2025 an FIR has been lodged under Sections 85 and 80 (2) of the BNS (corresponding Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC) and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against five named accused persons including the present applicant, who is sister in law/Jethani of the deceased) alleging therein that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized on 18.04.2025 but the named accused persons were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they used to beat the daughter of the informant for demand of dowry i.e. one tola gold and two lakh in cash and when the same was not fulfilled, they killed her by giving poison.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is sister-in-law/jethani of the deceased. Her name has falsely been implicated by the informant in the FIR by making same general allegation as it has been made to the other co-accused named persons, which has been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 wherein it has been held that the mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) INSC 214 wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide. There is no eye witness of the incident.
6. It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No.3995 of 2022 dated 26.11.2024, wherein it has been observed that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated version of the incident are reflected by making allegation against all the family members and the Court should be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with such complaints.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant is living separately with her husband and a two years old daughter and in support of his submission, she has relied upon the pariwar register and the statement given by independent witness namely Anand Kumar Mishra. The copy of the pariwar register and statement of Anand Kumar Mishra have been enclosed as Annexure nos. 7 & 8 to the paper book.
8. It is further submitted that the applicant is having a pregnancy of four months and she is in jail since 06.02.2026 with her two year old daughter. The applicant has no criminal history.
9. On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that some of the villagers had also made the statement stating therein that there might be possibility of interference by the husband of the applicant and by the applicant but unable to dispute the pariwar register and the statement given by independent witness namely Anand Kumar Mishra as well as the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. Considering the submissions of the respective counsels, prima facie it appears from the pariwar register that the applicant is living separately; she is having a pregnancy of four months and she is in jail with her two year old daughter; there are general allegations against the family members, which is not appreciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra); as per the settled law in the case of Mangat Ram (supra) wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide; there is no eye-witness of the incident; thus, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.
11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant- Smt. Shivani be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
13. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
14. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.
(Manish Kumar,J.)
April 15, 2026
Nitesh
