[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Saroj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 16 April, 2026
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:26279
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2700 of 2026
Smt. Saroj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Arjun Singh Kalhans, Ranjeet Singh Baghel
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 Case Crime No. 339 of 2025, under Sections 80 (2) & 85 of the BNS (old Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC) and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Colonelganj, District- Gonda is seeking enlargement on bail.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 29.08.2025, an FIR has been lodged under Sections Sections 80 (2) & 85 of the BNS (old Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against four named accused persons including the present applicant, who is married sister in law of the deceased) alleging therein that the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with Nakched, two years ago and since then, all the accused persons harassing physically to the sister of the informant for demand of a motorcycle and on 29.08.2025, they killed the sister of the informant and hanged her.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is sister-in-law of the deceased. Her marriage was solemnized seventeen years ago and she is living in her in-laws (sasural) in a separate village which is about 25 kms. from her maika, where the deceased has hanged herself and in support of separate living, the applicant has enclosed a copy of the pariwar register issued by Gram Panchayat Pairori, Nyaya Panchayat- Shishamau, village Pairori, Tehsil Colonelganj, District- Gonda.
5. It is further submitted that general allegations have been made against the family members including the present applicant, 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.
6. It is further submitted that the cause of death shown in the post mortem report is Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and there was no injury on the body of the deceased. At this juncture, he 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.
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.
8. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and she is in jail since 24.11.2025.
9. On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for bail but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. Considering the submissions of the respective counsels it is found that there are general allegations against the family members, which is not appreciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra); there was no injury on the body of the deceased; as per the medical report, cause of death shown is Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging, prima-facie, it does not corroborate with story in the FIR and the statement of informant; 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; as per record, it appears that the applicant is living separately in her in-laws house after her marriage, which was solemnized 17 years ago; 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. Saroj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 her 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
Nitesh
