Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 108 BNS, Police Station-
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 108 BNS, Police Station-
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Savitri Devi v. State of U.P.

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3178 of 2026

    Court No. - 72

    HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

    1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

    2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.192 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station- Baburi, District- Chandauli, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends her arrest in the above-mentioned case.

    3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage between the son of the applicant and the deceased took place on 29.11.2017. The applicant never tortured or harassed the deceased and did not have any role to play in the suicide of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. There are no other physical injuries except the ligature mark. The applicant is an old lady aged about 82 years and is suffering with liver cancer dubbed as Hepatocellular Carcinoma. He contends that the co-accused Surya Vijay Gupta has been granted regular bail by this Court vide its order dated 17.02.2026 passed in

    Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5834 of 2026 (Surya Vijay Gupta Vs. State of U.P.). The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

    4. The Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and specific allegations have been made against her. The medical condition and the age of the victim is not denied. The Learned A.G.A., however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant is having no criminal history to her credit.

    5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties and perused the material brought on the record.

    6. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to this Versus

    Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sadhana Dubey, Sr. Advocate

    Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

    Savitri Devi

    .....Applicant(s)

    State of U.P.

    .....Opposite Party(s)

    1

    Court that the applicant, who is 82 years of age and suffering from liver cancer, can be considered for grant of anticipatory bail on medical grounds. The fact that co-accused, husband of the deceased, has been granted bail by this Court and the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to that of the co-accused, also entitles the applicant for consideration of anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

    7. In view of the discussions made above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

    8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

    9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Savitri Devi, she shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

    i. the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

    ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

    iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

    iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

    10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

    11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

    April 2, 2026

    Sachin NABAIL No. 3178 of 2026

    2

    (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Savitri Devi v. State of U.P.
    (Apr 2, 2026)