Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60391 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10346 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Meerana Devi @ Janata Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. In the cause list the name of Sri Virendra Singh Yadav is printed as learned counsel for the first informant but there is no vakalatnama on record of the said learned counsel. Office to trace out the same and place the same on record, if filed, by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same. 4. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant- Smt. Meera Devi @ Janata Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.156 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 238 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S.Visharatganj, District Bareilly. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.8.2024 by Kailash against the applicant and five other persons alleging therein that on 19.8.2024, Arti, the daughter of the first informant had come to his house on the festival of Rakhi and on 20.8.2024 she returned back to her matrimonial house. On 28.8.2024 he has come to know that the accused persons have murdered his daughter and have cremated the dead-body. His daughter was married to Yatendra three years ago and used to be tortured and harassed for dowry. The accused persons have murdered his daughter. A report be lodged and action be taken. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that in the statement of the first informant Kailash recorded during investigation under Section 180 BNSS, it has been stated by him that Ramveer Yadav informed him on his mobile about the death of his daughter, as such the information about the death of the deceased was sent by the husband of the applicant to the first informant. It is argued that the first informant and his family members attended the cremation ceremony and there was allegation of demand of money which could not be fulfilled and then the present FIR has been lodged. While placing para 14 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that the deceased had a quarrel with her husband Yatendra on a petty issue and then in the night of 25/26.8.2024, she committed suicide. The applicant is aged about 60 years, para 10 of the affidavit in support of bail application has been placed before the Court. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.10.2024. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died in her matrimonial house. There is an allegation of demand of dowry by the accused persons and the husband of the deceased. Ramveer Yadav, who gave information to the first informant about the death of the deceased is a different person as the husband of the applicant is Ramveer S/o Nanhey. The pleading of the said statement makes it clear that Ramveer Yadav is the different person whereas the husband of the applicant is a different person and they have been differently mentioned therein. The deceased died unnatural death in her matrimonial house and the dead-body was cremated without giving information to the first informant or authorities concerned and after some days when information was given to the informant, the present FIR has been lodged. The bail application be thus rejected. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased Arti died in her matrimonial house. The dead-body of the deceased was cremated which was not subjected to even postmortem examination. The death is unnatural. The applicant is named in the FIR. The description of the two persons in the statement of the first informant appear to be different as he stated that Ramveer Yadav informed him about the death of his daughter then he states of Ramveer, the husband of the applicant. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 22.4.2025/Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad