Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65955 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14142 of 2025 Applicant :- Maya Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Darwari Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Darwari Lal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Maya Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.362 of 2024, under Sections 80 (2), 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3-4 D.P. Act, P.S. Hafiganj, District Bareilly. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 13.8.2024 by Lokesh Kumar against the applicant (mother-in-law), Umesh Babu @ Babloo (husband) and Krishnapal (father-in-law) alleging therein that the marriage of Geeta Devi, his sister was solemnized with Umesh Babu @ Babloo one and half years back in which he had spent about Rs. 12 lakh in gifts and dowry but the accused persons were not happy with it and after some days there was a demand of a car. His sister told him about the said demand after which he tried to console the accused persons many times but accused persons due to non-fulfillment of dowry used to torture and assault his sister. In the meantime one girl was born from the wedlock of the deceased and Umesh Babu @ Babloo. On 10.8.2024 at about 10-11 a.m. he received an information on phone by someone that due to non-fulfillment of dowry of car, his sister is being assaulted by the accused persons. When he and other persons reached there, they found injuries on the body of his sister and saw that the accused persons were making arrangement for her cremation. The police was then informed. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. 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. While placing para no.22 of the affidavit in support of bail application it is submitted that the applicant lives separately in house no.59 whereas the son of the applicant and the deceased used to live in house no.72. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the life and living of the deceased and her husband. The applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 BNSS. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.2.2025. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased Geeta Devi was found to have received four injuries on her person amongst which injury no.1 is incised wound on the mid forehead, the injury no.2 is scratch nail mark on the left side of neck and below from left ear, the injury no.3 and 4 were abrasions on both sides of neck and on the left side of neck and the cause of death is shock and coma due to antemortem head injury. In so far as the head region of the deceased is concerned, the frontal bone of skull was found fractured, the meningeal spaces and meningeal vessels were found lacerated, the brain was found lacerated and haematoma was present. The same goes to show that the deceased was brutally murdered. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another : SLP (Criminal) No.15156 of 2024, decided on 03.03.2025 and while placing para 15 of the same has submitted that the gravity of the offence also needs to be looked into and there is nothing on record that the deceased died a natural death. It is submitted that the Apex Court while considering bail to the father-in-law and mother-in-law while setting-aside the same has observed that the gravity of the offence has to be looked and in the present case the injuries received by the deceased goes to show the gravity of the offence, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She is named in the FIR. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. There is allegation of demand of dowry. Postmortem report shows four injuries on the body of the deceased amongst which injury no.1 is incised wound on the mid forehead, the injury no.2 is scratch nail mark on the left side of neck and below from left ear, the injury no.3 and 4 were abrasions on both sides of neck and on the left side of neck and the cause of death is shock and coma due to antemortem head injury. In so far as the head region of the deceased is concerned, the frontal bone of skull was found fractured, the meningeal spaces and meningeal vessels were found lacerated, the brain was found lacerated and haematoma was present. There is extensive damage to the head of the deceased. 8. 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 :- 29.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad