Allahabad High Court
SHANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as no prima facie case exists under Section 108 B.N.S. and there is no material risk of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
Shanti Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, applied for bail in a case filed under Sections 85, 108, 352 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She contended that she was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged belatedly, and that the prosecution had not established the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 108. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these submissions. The Court held that the delayed FIR and lack of any proximate act by the applicant meant no prima facie case existed, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered her release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case
- Whether the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. (abetment of suicide) are established against the applicant
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged dowry harassment and abetment of suicide
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 108, 352, 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- dowry prohibition
- FIR delay
- prima facie case
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32424 of 2026
Shanti Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Monu Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, under Sections 85, 108,
352 B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Patherwa, District
Kushinagar during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-
in-law (Saas) of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 11.10.2025. The first
information report was lodged on 13.10.2025. The delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The deceased was married
to the son of the applicant on 20.05.2018. As per the postmortem report, the
cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Further, as per
the allegations in the first information report and the material collected
during the course of investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Mere allegations of
demand of dowry or harassment in absence of any positive act of instigation,
intentional aid, or proximate conduct compelling the deceased to commit
suicide, do not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. Learned
counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex
Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav
Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal
BAIL No. 32424 of 2026
2
Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025. It is further
contended that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty by the applicant.
Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted.
The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since
02.8.2026 and if she is released on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been
lodged belatedly. As per the allegations in the first information report and
the material collected during the course of investigation, the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made
out. There is no proximate or direct act attributable to the applicant that
could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the
commission of suicide. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has remained
confined for more than a month and there is no hope of early conclusion of
trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the
State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the
evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant- Shanti Devi, involved in the aforesaid case, be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that
she:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 11, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…