Smt Nirmala Yadav vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 11042 of 2026
Smt Nirmala Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuvansh Misra, Ratnakar
Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No. 109 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 61, 115(2) BNS and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad with a
prayer to grant her anticipatory bail.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows; the marriage between the
applicant's son and sister of opposite party No.2 was solemnized on
4.5.2021. On 18.2.2025, the deceased was found unconscious at the
matrimonial home during the night of 18/19.2.2025. She was initially
hospitalized at Laxmi Hospital, Firozabad, and was subsequently
transferred to Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital, Agra, where she
ultimately passed away on 25.2.2025. As per the post mortem report, the
cause of death was shock resulting from myocardial infarction. The
opposite party No.2 lodged a Zero FIR, as Case Crime No.001 of 2025
under Sections 80(2), 85, 61, 115(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act
against the applicant, her daughter and her son. Subsequently, the said
zero FIR was transferred to the police station having territorial
jurisdiction and was registered as Case Crime No.109 of 2025 at Police
Station Tundla, District Firozabad, under Sections 80, 115(2), 61, 85 BNS
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. After investigation charge sheet was filed on

NABAIL No. 11042 of 2026
2
10.9.2025 and cognizance was taken on 3.1.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing
to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant
is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that the
deceased was married to the applicant's son on 04.05.2021 according to
Hindu rites and rituals. The applicant neither demanded additional dowry
nor subjected her to any harassment or cruelty in connection therewith.
On 18.02.2025, the deceased was admitted to Lakshmi Hospital Trauma
and Critical Care with complaints of pyrexia, headache, and seizures. She
was subsequently referred to a higher centre on 19.02.2025. The deceased
was admitted to Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital on 19.02.2025 at 9:02
A.M. An MRI of the brain of deceased was conducted on 20.02.2025 at
Element Diagnostics, which revealed abnormalities and led to a suspected
diagnosis of viral encephalitis. During the course of treatment, the
deceased passed away on 25.02.2025 at 6:01 A.M.
5. The death summary issued by Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital,
recorded the cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest, with a provisional
diagnosis of fever with seizures and meningitis. He further submits, that
the deceased had been suffering from fever, chills, and headaches for a
few days before her condition progressed to multiple episodes of
vomiting, followed by altered sensorium and frothing from the oral
cavity. The deceased was managed in the Neuro ICU with antibiotics and
antiepileptic medication, and mannitol and symptomatic treatment were
administered. However, there was a sudden decline in her Glasgow Coma
Scale (GCS) score, followed by cardiac arrest. The deceased was placed
on life support, and CPR was initiated; however, despite continuous
efforts, she could not be revived. The post-mortem examination of the
deceased was conducted on 25.02.2025 at 5:00 P.M., during which
contusions and abrasions were observed on her left and right shoulders.
The cause of death was opined to be shock resulting from myocardial
infarction.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, it is an admitted fact

NABAIL No. 11042 of 2026
3
that opposite party no. 2 was informed telephonically on 19.02.2025,
when the deceased had been admitted to Lakshmi Hospital. During the
inquest proceedings, the witnesses stated, that the deceased had died due
to medical complications. A Zero FIR was registered as Case Crime No.
001 of 2025 under Sections 80(2), 85, 61, and 115(2) of the B.N.S., and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the husband, mother-
in-law/applicant, and sisters-in-law of the deceased. Subsequently, the
said Zero FIR was transferred to the police station having territorial
jurisdiction and was thereafter registered as Case Crime No. 109 of 2025
at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, under Sections 115(2), 61,
80(2), and 85 of the B.N.S., and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. He further
submits, that the death of the deceased was purely natural and occurred as
a result of a cardiac arrest arising from medical complications. It is
emphatically contended that the deceased died due to cardiac failure and
that, there is no allegation or material to indicate that her death was
caused by any bodily injury, burns, poisoning, or any other form of
external or unnatural cause. Consequently, the essential ingredients of
Section 80(2) of the BNS, particularly that the death must be an
"unnatural death" or must have occurred "otherwise than under normal
circumstances," are not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
7. It is further submitted that the arrest of the applicant was stayed by a
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.7.2025 in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 12865 of 2025. Now, the charge-sheet has been submitted
in this case on 10.9.2025, whereon the learned court concerned took
cognizance of offence vide order dated 3.1.2026. The applicant has
cooperated in the investigation. The main accused i.e. husband of the
deceased has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 6.11.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35755 of
2025. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has
also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail,
she shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation,
and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

NABAIL No. 11042 of 2026
4
8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. It is further
submitted that the deceased, Pratibha Yadav @ Pooja, was married to
Krishnakant Yadav, the applicant's son, on 04.05.2021. Sufficient dowry
was given before and at the time of the marriage, but the deceased's
husband and in-laws were not satisfied with it. It is further submitted
that even after the marriage, the deceased continued to be subjected to
persistent dowry demands, harassment, and cruelty at her matrimonial
home.
9. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that on 15.02.2025, the
deceased informed her mother that she had been physically dragged and
assaulted by the applicant and Sapna Yadav, her sister-in-law. On
18.02.2025, she spoke to her mother for the last time. She was found
unconscious at the matrimonial home on the night of 18/19.02.2025. She
was initially hospitalized at Lakshmi Hospital, Firozabad, and was
subsequently transferred to Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital, Agra, where
she ultimately passed away on 25.02.2025.
10. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the death summary mentions
"fever with seizures / ?meningitis," wherein the question mark indicates a
suspected, rather than a confirmed, diagnosis. Learned A.G.A. further
submits that it is a well-settled principle of the law of evidence that a
post-mortem report, by itself, does not constitute substantive piece of
evidence. The post-mortem report is merely a prior statement made by the
doctor on the basis of his examination of the deceased's body. Learned
A.G.A. further submits that the deceased died within seven years of her
marriage and, according to the prosecution, was subjected to cruelty and
harassment in connection with a demand for dowry, soon before her
death. It is, therefore, contended that the aforesaid facts and
circumstances prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of Section
80(2) of the BNS. It is, therefore, contended that the allegations made in
the FIR and the material collected during the investigation disclose the
commission of the alleged offence by the applicant, and that the
application is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record.

NABAIL No. 11042 of 2026
5
12. The MRI of brain showed some suspicion of some possibility of viral
encephalitis in the brain. She was treated in Laxmi Hospital initially after
being diagnosed as pyrexia with headache with seizure GTC Type.
Subsequently she was taken and admitted in Ujala Cygnus Rainbow
Hospital, Agra where she was diagnosed as having 'Fever with Seizures/?
Meningitis' due to which she was admitted therein on 19.2.2025 at 09:02
AM and was under treatment till 25.2.2025 and it appears from the death
summary that she became quite critical and CPR was given but she could
not survive and died on 25.2.2025 at 06:01 AM. Post mortem was done
wherein three contusions and one abraded contusion on her body were
found. The said injuries are on non-vital parts of the body and did not
contribute to her death. Cause of death has been opined due to shock as a
result of Myocardial Infarction. Cause of death as per post mortem report
coupled with the fact that treatment of the deceased in two hospital go to
show that she was unwell. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The
co-accused Krishnakant @ Abhishek, husband of the deceased, has been
enlarged on regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a detailed
order dated 6.11.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35755 of
2025. The charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case. There is no
case of prosecution that the applicant did not co-operate during
investigation. The cognizance of offence has already been taken by the court
concerned. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.
13. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall

NABAIL No. 11042 of 2026
6
not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles
under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
(v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
agree more with this."
14. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits, and the case of the applicant is
squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, a case for anticipatory bail
is made out.
15. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-
(i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant- Smt Nirmala Yadav
involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, before the competent Court on her furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned;
(ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.
(iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

NABAIL No. 11042 of 2026
7
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; and
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.
16. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
applicant, before the concerned court.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
October 22, 2026
Lalit Shukla
Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad