Lalji Maurya vs State Of U.P.

Hon'Ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 36th Edition, drowning is of four types :

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 asphyxia.

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.

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.

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 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the 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.

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:-

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhaar Card of the applicant and sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.

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.

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.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicants through Jaunpur Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal and Trial Court 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 SCC 685 as well as in the case of Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others vs State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.169 of 2025 decided on 29.05.2026.

Application, if any, stands disposed of.

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.

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the S.P., Jaunpur as well as the District Commandant Home Guard, Jaunpur for compliance of paragraph no. 28.