Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 188326 (ALL)

MEETA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P.

NABAIL/12081/2024 · 2025-01-22

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11936 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12081 of 2024 Applicant :- Meeta Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record. 2. This application under section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.276 of 2024, under sections 85, 115(2), 80(2) B.N.S. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Prayagraj. 3. In brief, the allegations in the first information report are that the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with the co-accused Manoj Kumar Patel in the year 2022. The co-accused Manoj Kumar Patel and his parents used to torture the sister of the informant for non-fulfillment of dowry. On 10.7.2024 at about 6.30 p.m., the police informed the informant that his sister has committed suicide by hanging herself. The informant has an apprehension that the accused persons have committed murder of his sister. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was not subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of her arrest in the above mentioned case. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA submits that in the instant case a young woman died of unnatural cause within two years of marriage. She was being treated badly. There are allegations of demand of dowry resulting to torture, exert pressure for fulfilling the demand. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides in the light of material produced including the postmortem report, statement of the informant and also the contents of the F.I.R. 7. In my view, this is not an appropriate case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the application is hereby rejected leaving it open to the applicant to apply for regular bail before the concerned court, which application when filed, may be considered on its own merits, without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad