HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32894 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard Mr. Kunwar Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Kaushlendra, learned counsel for the complainant. 2-By means of this bail application, applicant-Smt. Shanti Devi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 293 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-As per prosecution case in brief, complainant-Mohan Sonkar who is father of the deceased-Ragini Sonkar got a first information report lodged on 22.07.2025 against Mukesh Sonkar, Rajesh Sonkar, Rakesh Sonkar, Guddu Sonkar, Shanti Devi, Pooja and Punita who are husband, brothers-in-law (jeth), mother-in-law and sisters-in-law (jethani) of the deceased respectively alleging inter-alia that on 22.01.2024, marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Mukesh Sonkar. After the said marriage, his daughter was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home due to additional demand of dowry (motor cycle and washing machine). On 21.07.2025, his daughter has been done to death in her matrimonial home. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas, after the marriage of Ragini with Mukesh, applicant started living with her younger son. The general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused persons. As per post-mortem report of the deceased, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2025, therefore, she may be released on bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunvar Rahul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kaushlendra Smt. Shanti Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that the investigating officer, after culmination of investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 16.08.2025 against the present applicant and co-accused Mukesh Sonkar (husband of the deceased). It is also pointed out that neither the applicant nor his son (husband of deceased) had given any information about the said incident to the police or parents of deceased. Father of deceased had given information to police, on which inquest proceeding was done but in- laws of the deceased were not present. The father of deceased took the child of deceased with him and he is taking care of him. Lastly it is submitted that deceased died in her matrimonial home on account of her harassment and torture. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the deceased died her unnatural death in her matrimonial home within one and a half year of her marriage. The applicant being mother-in-law of the deceased and her son co- accused-Mukesh, who is husband of deceased were not only responsible for the safety and welfare of deceased, but also under heavy onus to explain her unnatural death, which took place in their own house. If daughter-in-law dies her unnatural death in her matrimonial house, it is natural that information will be given to her parents or other concerned relative as well as to police, whereas in the present case, nothing is on record to indicate that any information was given by the husband or in-laws of the deceased to her parents, which shows their unnatural conduct. In paragraph no. 26 of the affidavit filed in support of this bail application, it is mentioned inter- alia that the deceased was living with her husband but due to interference of members of her maika, she was misguided and then she started misbehaving with the applicant and at last, she returned to her maika and did not come back thereafter. This averment does not inspire confidence on the face of record itself as deceased died her unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The fact as to whether applicant was living with her younger son or with the husband of the deceased is a disputed question, which can be adjudicated by the trial court at the appropriate stage after leading evidence in this regard. 7-Under the facts of the case, presumption of dowry death under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 shall also be drawn against the applicant. Husband of the deceased is also in jail. 8-The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be BAIL No. 32894 of 2025 2 urged by the parties in the trial Court. 9-In view of the above, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 10-Accordingly, instant bail application of the applicant is rejected. 11-It is made clear that observations, if any, made in this order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not effect the merit of the case. 12-Trial Court is directed to made an endeavor to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 13-Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court, concerned within a week for information and compliance. 14-It is open for the applicant to move second bail application after recording the statement of complainant before the trial Court. September 24, 2025 Saurabh BAIL No. 32894 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad