Allahabad High Court
Neelu vs State Of U.P. on 18 September, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:167682
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21639 of 2025
Neelu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Lavkush Dixit, Shishir Tandon
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Anuj Datta, G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. An affidavit of compliance dated 13.8.2025 has been filed by the State counsel which is on the record, which is in compliance of the order dated 16.7.2025 of this Court.
3. Learned State counsel submits that as per the report of viscera examination, viscera was found to contain "Aluminum Phosphide Poison".
4. This matter is nominated to this Bench vide order dated 10.7.2025 by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
5. Heard Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Datta Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anuj Datta, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P. and perused the material on record.
6. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Neelu seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.84 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Saifai, District- Etawah.
7. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 05.5.2025 by Kamlesh Kumar Yadav against Ajay (husband), Neelu(nand), Ram, Satyadev and Brajesh alleging therein that his daughter Anita(26 years) was married to Ajay Yadav on 22.6.2023 in which he had given gifts and dowry as per his status, after which in-laws of Anita including her husband, nand Neelu, Ram the son of Mausi of Ajay were not satisfied with the dowry and used to torture her. He was working in CRPF and had only one daughter and thus he always tried to pacify his daughter for it. Since the last 10 months the accused persons had assaulted his daughter and thrown out of her house and she was living with him. On 30.4.2025 on the saying of Ajay he himself sent his daughter to her matrimonial house but the accused persons did not mend their ways and his daughter told him on phone that they have again started torturing her. Ajay, nand Neelu and cousin brother Ram were demanding as additional dowry a four wheeler vehicle and Rs.5 lakh. His daughter has one year old son. On 04.5.2025 he, his brother and other relatives had gone to the house of Ajay and in the presence of many people talks were done and they had agreed that they would not torture his daughter, after which he returned back. In night of 04.5.2025 the accused persons in a planned manner assaulted his daughter and left her at PGI, Saifai Hospital and ran away. On information from neighbours he reached the hospital and found his daughter to be dead. The police and the Magistarte are doing their work. The accused persons used to threaten his daughter and her son for life. A report be lodged and action be taken.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is unmarried nanad of the deceased Anita. It is further submitted that the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide and the doctor conducting post mortem examination preserved viscera which after examination was found to contain "Aluminum Phosphide Poison" in it. It is submitted that the deceased was living in her maternal house since the last 10 months and on the request of her husband/Ajay she was sent back on 30.4.2025 and after her coming back to matrimonial house, she started misbehaving with the family members after which a panchayat was called on 4.5.2025. While placing para-17 of the supplementary affidavit dated 06.8.2025 it is submitted that the deceased was having affair with the brother of the applicant regarding which the family members had objected and informed to the family members of the deceased, after which she had left her matrimonial house and started living in her maternal house. It is submitted that after returning back the deceased again indulged herself in the same activity and the family members were informed about it, para- 18 of the said supplementary affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that the deceased in a fit of anger consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide, after which she was immediately taken to the hospital but could not saved, para-19 and 20 of the said supplementary affidavit have been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-22 of the affidavit and she is in jail since 5.5.2025.
9. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture by her. It is submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within 07 years of her marriage. Further it is submitted that post mortem examination report of the deceased would go to show that there had been cruelty on her soon before dead inasmuch the doctor found ante mortem external injuries on her body. The same are as under:-
"1. A bluish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm was present over frontal aspect of right arm at it's upper 1/3rd. On further dissection underlying tissues were ecchymosed.
2. A bluish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm was present over frontal aspect of left arm at it's upper 1/3rd. On further dissection underlying tissues were ecchymosed.
3. A reddish scratch abrasion of size 1.5 cm x 0.2cm was present over left side of back of chest at lower aspect, situated 12cm away from midline and 29 cm below top of left shoulder.
4. A bluish contusion of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm was present over fronto-lateral aspect of left thigh at it's lower 1/3td. On further dissection underlying tissues were ecchymosed."
10. It is further submitted that in the internal examination the doctor on the scalp of the deceased found the following injuries:-
"Scalp: On reflection of scalp, a contusion of size lcm x lcm was present over left parietal region."
11. Further in brain of the deceased the doctor found the following damage:-
"Brain: Patchy subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage were present over left frontal, left parietal and right parietal lobes of cerebral hemispheres. On cut section of brain petechial hemorrhage was seen in white mater of brain."
12. It is submitted that opinion of the doctor in so far as the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report are concerned is that they are ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt force, but since viscera was preserved cause of death was kept pending till the report of chemical analysis of viscera from F.S.L. It is submitted that injuries on the body of the deceased go to show that there was torture and harassment to her by the accused persons. It is further submitted that during investigation Jahar Singh, Smt. Sarla Devi and Smt. Munisha were interrogated who have assigned the specific role to the applicant which goes to show that there was active participation of the applicant in the present incident, the said statements have been placed before the Court which are at page-77, 80 and 83 respectively of the said supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that as such the applicant is actively in the present matter and thus prayer for bail be rejected.
13. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. She has been assigned the role along with the other co-accused of torture, harassment and demand of dowry from the deceased. The deceased has died unnatural death in her matrimonial house within seven years of her marriage. Extensive injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Viscera was also preserved which was found to contain "Aluminum Phosphide Poison" in it. The said three witnesses namely Jahar Singh, Smt. Sarla Devi and Smt. Munisha were interrogated who have assigned the active role of participation of the applicant in the present incident.
14. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
15. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) September 18, 2025 Naresh