Allahabad High Court
SMT SANTOSHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Smt Santosh, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman who died from burn injuries, applied for bail in a case under Sections 85, 103 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the family, including the applicant, harassed the deceased to obtain a loan and that an inflammable substance was thrown on her, leading to her death. The applicant argued that the deceased’s dying declaration specifically implicated only co‑accused Sonu and Jitendra, and that there was no material linking her to the offence; she also highlighted her clean record and the fact that the husband had already been granted bail. The State contended that the FIR and the victim’s statements named all family members, including the applicant, as perpetrators. The court, considering precedent, the nature of the offence, the lack of specific evidence against the applicant, and the policy of reducing jail overcrowding, allowed the bail application with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, Smt Santosh, is entitled to bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita despite the FIR and victim statements implicating all family members.
- Whether the specific allegations in the dying declaration against other co‑accused preclude bail for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 115(2), 480, 85
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- homicide
- dying declaration
- mother-in-law
- overcrowded jails
- harassment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11231 of 2026
Smt Santosh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohit Singh, Prarabadh Jain, Sandeep
Kumar Srivastava, Sr. Advocate,
Umesh Chandra Shukla, Veerendra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anmol Kumar Dubey, G.A., Mohd
Raghib Ali, Rajrshi Gupta, Yogesh
Chandra Dubey
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajrshi
Gupta, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ramkumar Verma,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2025, under Sections 85, 103
and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station
Didauli, District Amroha, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the
prosecution story, the deceased was harassed by the applicant and other
family members for forcing her to obtain a loan on her plot so that the
brother-in-law of the deceased, namely Sonu, and the real brother of the
father-in-law of the deceased may start business from that money. The
deceased died due to burn injuries after one month of the incident and she
was admitted to the hospital by the husband of the deceased. It is further
submitted that the husband of the deceased had been granted bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
28825 of 2026 vide order dated 17.08.2026 on the ground that there is no
specific allegation against the husband of the deceased and at the time of
the incident he was not present in the house. It is further submitted that
BAIL No. 11231 of 2026
2
the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and during
investigation, the statement of the deceased prior to her death was also
recorded on 26.08.2025, wherein she made a general allegation against
the entire family members for harassing her and throwing some
inflammable substance on her and because of that her clothes had burnt.
Thereafter, the dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate on
27.08.2025, wherein the deceased made specific allegation of throwing
some inflammable substance upon her by co-accused Sonu and setting her
on fire by co-accused Jitendra. Therefore, the specific allegation is against
the co-accused Sonu and Jitendra and the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case merely because she is the mother-in-law of
the deceased, though there is no material against the applicant and the
applicant, along with the husband of the deceased, immediately brought
the deceased to the hospital after the incident.
4. It is lastly submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed by the police;
therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. It is further
submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and, being a lady, she
is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 480 BNSS. The
applicant is a law-abiding citizen and she is languishing in jail since
01.10.2025. In case she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of
bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that in the FIR, allegation of harassment has been made against
all the accused persons, including the present applicant, and in the
statement of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer prior to
her death, she made a general allegation against all the family members,
including the present applicant, of throwing some inflammable substance
on her, which resulted in setting her on fire, and thereafter, even in her
dying declaration before the Magistrate, the victim made an allegation of
beating against all the family members, including the present applicant,
but could not dispute the fact that in the dying declaration of the deceased
recorded before the Magistrate, specific allegation of throwing
inflammable substance has been made against the co-accused Sonu and of
setting her on fire against the co-accused Jitendra. Therefore, the
BAIL No. 11231 of 2026
3
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the
applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, as well as the dying
declaration recorded before the Magistrate, wherein specific allegation
has been made against co-accused Sonu and Jitendra, and taking into
account the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court by which bail was granted to
the co-accused Anita, who is having a similar role as that of the present
applicant, and also keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence
and complicity of the accused, and also taking into account overcrowded
jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts, as well
as considering the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Kapil Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, as well as the guideline of this Court in the
case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765,
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant-Smt Santosh, involved in the aforementioned 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, with
the following conditions:-
i. 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.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by her.
BAIL No. 11231 of 2026
4
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as
well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Bijnor via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial
Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex
Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and others Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169
of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.
14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…