Allahabad High Court
MURSALINversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, Mursalin, mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, sought bail in a dowry‑death case where she was charged under IPC sections 85, 80(2), 351(3) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She claimed that the deceased was strangled by her husband and that she was in her Iddat period, confined to her room, and therefore could not have participated. The State opposed bail, arguing a prima facie case of dowry death and that the applicant, as mother‑in‑law, bore greater responsibility than the sister‑in‑law who had been granted bail. The Court noted that the applicant's defence was unconvincing, distinguished her case from the sister‑in‑law’s, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P. that mother‑in‑laws should not be released on bail in such matters. Consequently, the bail application was rejected without prejudice to the trial merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the mother‑in‑law accused in a dowry‑death case is entitled to bail.
- Whether the applicant's claim of being in Iddat and confined to her room negates her participation in the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- mother-in-law
- Indian Penal Code
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- public faith
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15469 of 2026
Mursalin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 64 of 2026, under Sections 85, 80(2), 351(3) BNS
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur during
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is mother-in-law of
the deceased and on the basis of false allegation she has been made accused
in the present matter along with others including husband of the deceased.
He further submits, however, post mortem report suggests that deceased died
due to strangulation but applicant is not responsible for her homicidal death.
4. He further submits, actually there was some dispute between husband and
wife and it appears, her husband strangulated her and after her murder only
being mother-in-law of the deceased applicant has also been made accused
in the present matter.
5. He further submits, even about 20 days before the alleged incident
husband of the applicant died and therefore she was in her Iddat period and
she was confined in her room, therefore, there was no occasion for her to
participate along with husband of the deceased in the murder of her
daughter-in-law.
6. He further submits, even bail application of Ilma the unmarried sister-in-
law of the deceased has been allowed by this Court vide order dated
BAIL No. 15469 of 2026
2
20.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12971 of 2026.
7. He further submits, even there is no specific allegation against applicant
and applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter she is in jail since 18.02.2026.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits,
applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and her daughter-in-law has been
murdered in her matrimonial home due to strangulation within one year of
her marriage and there is also allegation of torture for demand of Rs. 20
lakhs and Scorpio four wheeler.
9. Learned AGA further submits, applicant being mother-in-law was having
responsibility to explain the homicidal death of her daughter-in-law in
proper manner but very casually she tried to shift the burden only towards
the husband of the deceased and such explanation cannot be accepted being
lame excuses.
10. Learned AGA further submits, however, bail application of unmarried
sister-in-law of the deceased has been allowed by this Court but case of
applicant is distinguishable from her and being mother-in-law, applicant was
having more responsibility on her shoulder.
11. Learned AGA further submits, therefore, considering the above facts,
applicant should not be released on bail and instant bail application should
be dismissed.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
13. Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and her daughter-in-law died
due to strangulation in her matrimonial home within one year of her
marriage and there is also allegation of torture for demand of Rs. 20 lakhs
and Scorpio four wheeler, therefore, prima facie offence of dowry death is
made out against her.
14. Further, however, applicant tried to explain the homicidal death of her
daughter-in-law by making an averment that as about 20 days earlier her
husband died, therefore, she was in Iddat period and was confined to her
room and therefore she was not having any concerned with the homicidal
death of her daughter-in-law and her husband appears to be prime accused
BAIL No. 15469 of 2026
3
but defence taken by the applicant does not appear to be convincing and
merely on the ground that husband of the deceased appears to be prime
accused being mother-in-law applicant cannot be benefited in the cases like
present one where her daughter-in-law has been brutally murdered in her
matrimonial home in the presence of applicant.
15. Further, however, unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased has been
released on bail by this Court but applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased,
therefore, her case is distinguishable from the case of sister-in-law of the
deceased.
16. Further, even the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State
of U.P. (2025) 4 SCC 172 while cancelling the bail granted by Lucknow
Bench of this Court to mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased in case
of strangulation observed that if in such cases bail is granted then public
faith will be eroded and according to the Apex Court in such cases father-in-
law and mother-in-law should not be released on bail though Apex Court in
this case did not cancel the bail granted to sister-in-law of the deceased.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is rejected.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
May 7, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…