Allahabad High Court
NOOR MOHAMMADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant, Noor Mohammad, on the same terms as the co‑accused mother‑in‑law.
Summary
The applicant, Noor Mohammad, father‑in‑law of a woman who died by hanging, sought bail in a dowry‑related murder case (Crime No. 484 of 2025) under Sections 85, 80(2) of the Evidence Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He argued that no specific allegation was made against him, he has no criminal record, and that the co‑accused mother‑in‑law, Sakeena Begam, had already been released on bail under similar circumstances. The State contended that the death occurred under abnormal circumstances and alleged dowry‑related torture, but could not point to any distinct charge against the applicant. The Court, invoking the principle of uniformity from Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, held that treating similarly situated accused differently would violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Sections 85, 80(2) of the Evidence Act and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act despite the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the principle of uniformity and equality before law (Articles 14 and 15) requires the applicant to be granted bail similar to the co‑accused mother‑in‑law.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- uniformity
- Articles 14 and 15
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence Act
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- hanging
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9472 of 2026
Noor Mohammad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Kumar Kashyap, Virendra Pal
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shahbaz Hassan
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri V.P.Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.A.
Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shahbaz Hassan, learned
counsel for informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the
State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 484 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad during
pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is father-in-law of the
deceased and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in
the present matter along with others including mother-in-law of the deceased
Sakeena Begam and co-accused Sakeena Begum has been released on bail
by this Court and her bail order has been annexed at page-81 of the paper-
book and as far as allegations are concerned, the case of applicant is at par
with her.
5. He further submits, however, it is a case in which deceased sustained
some injuries but as per autopsy surgeon she died due to hanging and
considering all these facts, mother-in-law has been released on bail and there
is no occasion to take contrary view in the case of applicant, who is father-
in-law of the deceased.
BAIL No. 9472 of 2026
2
6. He further submits, there is no specific allegation against applicant and
applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in
jail since 20.11.2025 i.e. for last six months.
7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant however
opposed the prayer for bail and submit, daughter-in-law of the applicant died
under abnormal circumstances within five years of her marriage in her
matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for demand of
dowry and even she sustained number of injuries but they could not dispute
the fact that deceased died due to hanging and mother-in-law of the deceased
has been released on bail by this Court and as far as allegations are
concerned, the case of applicant is at par with her.
8. They also could not dispute the fact that there is no specific allegation
against applicant and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 20.11.2025 i.e. for last six months.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
10. Applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and his daughter-in-law died
within five years of marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal
circumstances and there is also allegation of torture for demand of dowry
and it also reflects, apart from the ligature mark deceased also sustained two
traumatic swellings, abrasions and contusions but autopsy surgeon opined
that she died due to hanging and considering this fact, co-accused Sakeena
Begam the mother-in-law of the deceased has been released on bail and as
far as allegations are concerned, the case of applicant is at par with her.
11. Further, from the bail granting order dated 25.02.2026 passed in the case
of co-accused Sakeena Begam it reflects, this Court while enlarging her on
bail also noticed the fact that informant in his statement stated that husband
of the deceased used to assault her under intoxication and also the fact that
even according to him mother-in-law used to reside separately. There is no
reason to deviate from the opinion expressed in case of co-accused Sakeena
Begam, the mother-in-law of the deceased.
12. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI &
another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that:-
"Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial
BAIL No. 9472 of 2026
3
dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently
either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by
an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."
13. Further, there is no specific allegation against applicant and applicant is
not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since
20.11.2025 i.e. for last six months.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant - Noor Mohammad be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
18. 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 12, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…