Allahabad High Court
KANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was rejected as the Section 180 statement was deemed a dying declaration and the case was not fit for bail.
Summary
Kanti Devi was arrested in Crime No.108 of 2026 under Section 103(1) B.N.S. and applied for bail, arguing that the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 180 B.N.S.S. was not a dying declaration and that procedural lapses (no medical certificate, non‑compliance with High Court rules) rendered the allegations false. The State opposed, contending that the statement was a dying declaration implicating the applicant and that the FIR facts suggested her involvement. The court examined the nature of the Section 180 statement and, finding it to be a dying declaration, concluded that the bail application lacked merit. Consequently, the bail was denied, with the court noting that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s merits. The court also directed that the trial proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. qualifies as a dying declaration.
- Whether procedural deficiencies (absence of medical certificate, non‑compliance with High Court rules) justify granting bail.
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused in a case under Section 103(1) B.N.S. pending trial.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 180
Subjects
- bail
- dying declaration
- Section 180
- Section 103
- criminal procedure
- gender considerations
- live‑in partnership
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31883 of 2026
Kanti Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Balram Jee Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.29 out of 172 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Balram Jee Verma, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun
Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.108 of 2026, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Munderwa,
District Basti with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the statement taken by
the Investigating Officer under Section 180 B.N.S.S. cannot be treated as a
dying declaration. No medical certificate regarding the fitness of the
deceased was obtained by him. Even the Rules of the High Court have not
been followed. As such, the allegations are per se false, and the applicant is
entitled to bail, being a lady. There is no motive for the applicant to commit
the said offence. The applicant was happily living with the deceased as a
live-in partner for four years. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2026 and is
ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under
Section 180 B.N.S.S. tantamounts to a dying declaration, and the said dying
BAIL No. 31883 of 2026
2
declaration categorically indicates the complicity of the applicant in the said
offence. Even the fact mentioned by the informant in the FIR that the door of
the room of the deceased was found bolted from outside, as such, the
deceased could not open it and had to force open the wall.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., which
tantamounts to a dying declaration, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail
to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, rejected.
7. 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.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
if there is no legal impediment.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…