Lalji Maurya vs State of U.P.

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29441 of 2026
Lalji Maurya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Along with :
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28957 of 2026:
Jadvati Devi
Versus
State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adarsh Pandey, Gaurav Mishra,
Manish Dubey, Saumitra Dwivedi,
Sharad Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ankit Shukla, G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit
Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Patanjali Mishra,
learned Government Advocate along with Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Both the bail applications have been filed with a prayer to release the
applicants on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 109 of 2026, under
Sections 85, 80(2), 351(3) B.N.S and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station- Jafrabad, District- Jaunpur.
3. Both the above bail applications arise out of same case crime number and
accused are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, therefore they
are being decided by this common order.

BAIL No. 29441 of 2026
2
4. This matter was heard on 18th August, 2026 and again on 19th August,
2026. On that date, counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of
dry drowning but the doctor has incorrectly mentioned, the cause of death
was smothering in post mortem report. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the commentary of Modi's
Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology; twenty-seventh Edition,
wherein it has been mentioned that in a few cases of drowning, water may
not be entered in the lungs even then a person may die because of asphyxia
as dry drowning caused by the laryngeal spasm set up by a small amount of
water entering the larynx.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the CCTV
footage installed at Police Chowki adjacent to the incident in question,
shows that the deceased was going towards bridge of river thereafter jumped
into river. It was also submitted that the applicants are father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased and they have been falsely implicated by
making general and vague allegations as it is clear case of suicide. It is lastly
submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is
no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicants have no criminal
history and they are languishing in jail since 28.05.2026. In case, they are
granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in
the trial proceedings.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court requested the Dr.
Rajesh Kumar Rai, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine
and Taxicology, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj to assist the
court.
7. In pursuance of request of this Court, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Rai, Associate
Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Taxicology, Moti Lal
Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj appeared before the Court on 19.08.2026
and also apprised the Court that prima facie it does not appear for drowning
as no water was found in the lungs and stomach. However, he submitted that
for giving definite opinion, certain other facts are also required to be
considered. Therefore, this Court directed the learned AGA to seek
instructions regarding CCTV footage as well as conditions of dead body
immediately after the incident.

BAIL No. 29441 of 2026
3
8. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.08.2026, I.O. of this case
namely Mr. Goldi Gupta, Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur is
present and he also filed his personal affidavit mentioning therein that on the
date of incident, it was found from CCTV footage installed at Police Chowki
adjacent to the bridge on river, the deceased was going towards river and
immediately jumped into river, and two policemen namely Shesh Nath
Yadav, Recruit Constable and Home Guard Ramesh Kumar Yadav
immediately rushed to the bridge. In the meantime, husband of the deceased
also reached on the spot on the motorcycle and also tried to save the
deceased. It is further mentioned in the personal affidavit that both the
doctors, who conducted the post mortem clearly stated that they did not find
water in lungs for that reason, opined that cause of death is smothering.
Along with affidavit, text of mobile conversation between the deceased and
her husband was also annexed which shows that the deceased was telling to
her husband that she was going to commit suicide but no reason was
mentioned in that conversation for committing suicide. It appears that there
was some dispute between the husband and wife.
9. CCTV footage was also produced by the I.O. which was played on the
Court's system, which shows that the deceased was going towards river
bridge and committed suicide by jumping into river. In the meantime, the
husband of the deceased was also reached there. It is also surprising that
both the constables, who had seen the entire incident, did not examine by the
I.O. On being asked from I.O., he submitted that he has instructed the
Chowki Incharge to send both the police personnel for recording their
statements but they did not turn up. This fact has been duly mentioned in the
case diary.
10. Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA has also placed before the Court,
Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology, eight edition, wherein it has been mentioned that in 20% of all
submersion casualties are cases of dry drowning. When water enters the
nasopharynx or larynx, it triggers sustained laryngeal spasm. Little or no
water therefore enters the air passages or lungs and death may result from
asphyxia. Sri Saxena also placed K.S.Narayan Reddy's Essentials of
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 36th Edition, wherein it has been
mentioned that there are four type of drowning; (1). Wet drowning, (2). Dry

BAIL No. 29441 of 2026
4
drowning, (3). Secondary drowning and (4). Immersion syndrome. While
defining the dry drowning, it has been mentioned that in this type of
drowning, water does entered into lungs, but death results from immediate
sustained laryngeal spasm due to inrush of water into the nasopharynx or
larynx. Thick mucus, foam and froth may develop, producing a plug. This is
seen in 10 to 20% cases of immersion.
11. From above submissions as well as commentary of Parikh's Medical
Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, KS Narayan Reddy's
Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology as well as Modi's Textbook
of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology on medical jurisprudence, it is
clear that in case of dry drowning, water may not be found in the lungs even
then the person died because of asphyxia and the same appears to be the
position in the present case.
12. It is unfortunate that the Doctors, who conducted the post
mortem, appear to have not aware about the phenomenon of dry drowning.
This is not the first case before the Court, where incorrect opinion has been
given by the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem and the Court had also
directed to the Principal Secretary, Department Health, Govt. of U.P. in the
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13930 of 2026 (Smt. Sangeeta and
another vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 05.08.2026 to conduct skill up-
gradation workshop for the doctors, who are involved in conducting the post
mortem of the dead bodies.
13. Though in such type of cases father-in-law and mother-in-law may get
bail on the first day but because of incorrect opinion of doctors, faulty
investigation, none co-operation of two policemen namely Constable Shiv
Nath Yadav and Home Guard Ramesh Kumar Yadav time was taken to
dispose of the bail application of the applicants, who are father-in-law and
mother-in-law.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer but
could not dispute the legal as well as opinion of Medical Jurisprudence,
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.
15. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, a
legal question arises that whether death of a person may be caused due to

BAIL No. 29441 of 2026
5
asphyxia after drowning without being entering the water into the lungs,
which needs to be addressed first, before coming to the merit of this case. It
is established law that when a person dies because of asphyxia then her/his
organs were found to be congested. Asphyxia may be caused because of
many reasons including the drowning. As per K.S. Naraiyana Reddy's
th
Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 36 Edition, drowning is
of four types :
(i) Wet drowning – In this type of drowning, water is inhaled into lungs and
victim has severe chest pain. This is also known as primary drowning in
which death occurs within minutes of submersion. Secondly to cardiac arrest
or ventricular fibrillation.
(ii) Dry drowning – In this type, water does not enter the lungs but death
results from immediate sustained laryngeal spasm due to in rush of water
into the nasopharynx or larynx, thick mucus, foam and froth may develop,
producing a plug. This type of drowning is seen in 10 to 20% cases of
immersion and is commonly seen in children and adults under the influence
of alcohol or sedative hypnotics.
(iii) Secondary drowning – This type of drowning refers to a submersion
victim who is resuscitated and survives for 24 hours. The person may not be
conscious. These persons may develop hypoxemia resulting in brain
damage, electrolyte disturbances, pulmonary oedema, hemoglobinuria,
sepsis, cardiac arrhythmias and mycocardial anoxia. Death may occur from
half to several hours.
(iv) Immersion syndrome – In this type of drowning, death results from
cardiac arrest due to vagal inhibition as a result of (a) cold water, stimulating
the nerve endings of the surface of the body; (b) water striking the
epigastrium; (c) cold water entering ear drums, nasal passages, and the
pharynx and larynx which cause stimulation of nerve endings of the mucosa.
16. Similarly in Parikh's Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology, dry drowning is also mentioned as atypical drowning. About
20% of all submersion casualties are cases of dry drowning. When water
enters the nasopharynx or larynx, it triggers sustained laryngeal spasm. Little
or no water therefore enters air passages or lungs and death may result from

BAIL No. 29441 of 2026
6
asphyxia.
17. Similarly, the Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology also defines different kinds of drowning like wet drowning, dry
drowning, secondary drowning and immersion syndrome or hydrocution
(cold water drowning). It further defines, that in a few cases death may occur
from obstructive asphyxia also known as dry drowning caused by laryngeal
spasm set up by a small amount of water entering the larynx. Under such
cases, water does not enter the lungs and the classical sign of drowning will
be absent.
18. From the discussions of above medical jurisprudence, it is clear that even
if no water is found in the lungs, a person dies because of asphyxia, if there
is evidence, that a dead body was removed from river then it may be a case
of dry drowning. Therefore, this Court holds that when several organs were
found to be congested because of asphyxia without there being any water in
the lungs then it could be a case of dry drowning.
19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the deceased
herself committed suicide and the applicants are father-in-law and mother-
in-law of the deceased and they are implicated on the basis of general
allegations without assigning any specific role and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in as well as guideline of this Court in
2025 SCC Online SC 3038
the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the
6765
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the both the applications are allowed.
20. Let the applicants- Lalji Maurya and Jadvati Devi involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

BAIL No. 29441 of 2026
7
i. The applicants 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicants shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicants shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.
21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
22. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
23. Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhaar Card of the applicant
and sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.
24. It is made clear that the applicants shall be released on the basis of
downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that
the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
25. It is directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.
26. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicants through
via e-mail or e-prison portal and Trial Court
Jaunpur Jail Superintendent
via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the orders of the Apex Court in
the case of
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10
as well as in the case of
SCC 685 Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others
vs State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.169

BAIL No. 29441 of 2026
8
decided on .
of 2025 29.05.2026
27. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
28. However, considering the negligence on the part of Recruit Constable
Shesh Nath Yadav and Home Guard Ramesh Kumar Yadav, who despite the
request of I.O. of this case did not appear to record their statement as they
were eye witnesses of the incident in question. Therefore, S.P., Jaunpur is
directed to conduct a departmental inquiry against the Recruit Constable
Shesh Nath Yadav. Similarly, the District Commandant Home Guard,
Jaunpur is also directed to conduct departmental inquiry against Home
Guard Ramesh Kumar Yadav regarding their negligence and non-
cooperation during investigation of this case and take appropriate action, in
accordance with law.
29. is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Registrar (Compliance)
S.P., Jaunpur as well as the District Commandant Home Guard, Jaunpur for
compliance of paragraph no. 28.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 11, 2026
A.Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad