[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Shabir Ali @ Sabir Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:26419
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2236 of 2026
Shabir Ali @ Sabir Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Avinash Kumar Sharma, Manish Kumar Gupta
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 Case Crime No.136/2026, Under Sections 80, 85, 61(2) BNS (Sections 304-B, 498A, 120 B I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
3. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 22.09.2025 has been lodged under Sections 80, 85, 61(2) BNS (Sections 304-B, 498A, 120 B I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, against four named accused persons including the present applicant (father-in-law of the deceased), alleging therein that the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized on 29.05.2025. The husband, sister-in-laws (nanad) and other family members of the sister of the informant used to harass her for dowry demand and when the same was not fulfilled, she was thrown out of the house. An agreement dated 16.09.2025 was entered into between the husband of the sister of the informant and his sister after interference of the Court. On 19.09.2025, the husband of the sister of the informant came for Bidai of his sister and took her to his sister's place at Amethi. The informant talked with his sister on 21.09.2025. On 22.09.2025 at about 1.00 PM he received a phone call that the condition of his sister is serious and after about 10 minutes, he received a phone call that his sister has expired. The informant has firm belief that these named accused persons have killed his sister for not fulfilling the dowry demand.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, aged about 71 years and he is suffering of kidney problem and his one kidney is not functioning and he is under treatment. The applicant has falsely been implicated alongwith other family members in the present case. There is no direct allegation of dowry demand against the applicant and by making general and omnibus allegation, whole of the family has falsely been implicated in the present case including the present applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as per story narrated in the F.I.R. the accused persons had killed the sister of the informant. As per post mortem report, cause of death could not ascertain and viscera preserved for chemical analysis. No external injury was found on the body of the deceased and as per FSL report, death was caused by consuming poison.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it is a case of suicide and there may be several reasons for committing suicide and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) INSC 214 has held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide.
7. 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. In the said judgement the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741, has also been relied, 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.
8. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail since 25.10.2025.
9. On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and on the basis of instruction received has submitted that there is a case of dowry demand against the applicant but he is unable to dispute the submission raised by the learned counsel for applicant, particularly that the applicant is suffering from kidney problem, which has been verified from the jail authority.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it is found that in the F.I.R. there is no specific allegation against the applicant. The F.I.R. has been lodged by making vague allegations against all the family members for dowry demand. The applicant is a 71 years old person and he is suffering from kidney problem. As per F.S.L report, death was caused by consuming poison and it might be a case of suicide, hence, even according to the informant as written in the FIR that he had firmly believed that these persons have committed the offence; it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
11. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant Shabir Ali @ Sabir Ali be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 16, 2026
S. Kumar
