Allahabad High Court
RAJJOversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted as the applicant was expressly named in the FIR and the dying declaration, rendering the application devoid of merit.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Rajjo, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, who is charged under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly setting the deceased on fire. The applicant argued that the prosecution witnesses did not corroborate the charge, that she was merely present, and that a co‑accused had already been released on bail, invoking parity. The State opposed, relying on the deceased’s dying declaration that named the applicant among those who set the fire. The Court held that the applicant was expressly named in the FIR and the dying declaration, and therefore the bail application lacked merit. Consequently, the bail was denied, with the Court directing an expeditious trial in line with Supreme Court precedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused who is named in the FIR and a dying declaration for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused on the ground of parity is sufficient to justify bail for the applicant.
- Whether the presence of a dying declaration against the applicant precludes the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 323, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dying declaration
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- parity
- criminal procedure
- Uttar Pradesh
- murder
- dowry death
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8940 of 2026
Rajjo
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, Ajay Nand
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.1 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ajay Nand Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sanjeev
Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by a common order of this Court dated 04.07.2025, passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15122 of 2024.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.257 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4
D.P. Act, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli with the prayer to enlarge
her on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the allegations of setting
the deceased afire are against the elder sister-in-law of the deceased, while
the other persons were only present at the said place. The prosecution
witnesses have not supported the prosecution story; as such, the applicant is
entitled to bail, as she is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The co-accused,
Deepak, brother-in-law of the deceased, has been enlarged on bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026, passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 93 of 2026; as such, the applicant is
also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is
BAIL No. 8940 of 2026
2
in jail since 25.09.2025 and is ready to cooperate with the trial. In case she is
released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that there is a dying declaration of the deceased in which there
are allegations that her husband, mother-in-law (applicant), father-in-law,
brother-in-law, along with three sisters-in-law, had set her afire, as such, the
applicant is not entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
that the applicant was very much named in the FIR and was also found
present in the dying declaration of the deceased coupled with the fact that
the deceased died due to the said injuries, 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.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
9. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…