In Hardoi district, Uttar Pradesh, a woman identified her missing husband, Jitendra Kumar alias Bablu, in an Instagram reel showing him with another woman, prompting authorities to reopen the seven-year-old missing-person case and place him in police custody. Jitendra had married Sheelu in 2017 in Atamau village and they had a son; he vanished roughly a year after the marriage, with an FIR filed on April 20, 2018, and a protracted police search yielding no leads. Earlier, Sheelu’s family had filed a dowry harassment complaint alleging demands for a gold chain and a ring, and Sheelu was expelled from the marital home when those demands were not met; relatives on Sheelu’s side also accused the other family of foul play at various times, though no evidence supported those claims for years.

The investigation established that Jitendra had staged his disappearance, moved to Ludhiana in Punjab, remarried, and started a new life, with his online presence helping to unravel the deception. Sheelu recognized him in the reel and alerted the Kotwali Sandila police, leading to formal action. Sandila Circle Officer Santosh Singh said a case has been registered under bigamy, fraud, and dowry harassment, and Jitendra is in police custody at the Sandila police station with further legal proceedings underway.

Additional context from the case places Jitendra as a resident of Attamau village in Hardoi and a labourer who had worked at a factory in Punjab; the reel showed him living with another woman in Ludhiana, prompting the police to reopen the inquiry and pursue verification of the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and current whereabouts. The investigation is ongoing, with authorities handling the matter in Uttar Pradesh and continuing to gather evidence as of September 2025.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (ludhiana) (fraud)

Actionable information - The article does not give readers concrete steps they can take right now if they are in a similar situation (e.g., dealing with a missing spouse, suspected bigamy, or domestic harassment). It reports a police case and a disclosure, but offers no how-to guidance, checklists, or resources for readers who might be navigating such concerns.

Educational depth - The piece provides a narrative of events but offers little deeper explanation. It mentions bigamy, fraud, and dowry harassment, but does not explain what those offenses entail under applicable law, what evidence is typically needed, or how investigations and legal proceedings usually unfold. Readers don’t get a meaningful primer on why these situations happen or how they’re adjudicated.

Personal relevance - The topic can matter to readers who are or might be in abusive, deceptive, or legally complicated domestic situations. However, the article doesn’t translate the case into practical relevance for everyday life (like how to protect oneself, recognize warning signs, or plan for safety and legal steps).

Public service function - While it informs about a real-case police action, the article does not provide public-safety guidance, official warnings, or direct tools people can use (such as contact numbers, helplines, or links to official resources for missing-persons, domestic violence, or civil remedies).

Practicality of advice - There are no runnable, clear actions in the piece. If a reader suspects similar behavior, there are no explicit, feasible steps outlined (e.g., how to document evidence, whom to contact, or how to seek immediate protection or legal aid).

Long-term impact - The article offers a momentary news narrative without guidance that would help readers plan for the future (safety planning, legal preparation, or long-term steps to prevent being vulnerable to such cases).

Emotional or psychological impact - The report could feel sensational or alarming, which might distress readers without offering support or coping guidance. It doesn’t provide reassurance, coping strategies, or constructive steps to stay calm and informed in a troubling situation.

Clickbait or ad-driven language - The framing uses a dramatic arc (missing person, Instagram reveal, second wife) that can read as attention-grabbing rather than instructional. If the headline or presentation emphasizes shock or sensational detail, it risks prioritizing views over practical help. If you’re evaluating the piece, be aware of potential sensational framing and verify with credible sources.

Missed chances to teach or guide - The article could have added: - A simple safety and action checklist for readers who might face similar issues (what to do if a spouse disappears, how to document harassment or dowry demands, who to contact). - Basic explanations of relevant laws (e.g., what constitutes bigamy, dowry harassment, and fraud in the local legal framework) and the typical investigative process. - Direct, practical resources: helplines, official portals for missing persons or domestic violence support, and guidance on finding legal aid or counsel. - One or two ways to find better information: refer readers to official government portals or women’s safety resources for legal advice and helplines; suggest contacting a local lawyer or a trusted NGO that handles family-law, domestic-violence, or cyber-dossier issues; encourage readers to look up the police or district legal aid websites for step-by-step procedures and contact numbers.

What the article truly gives the reader - It provides a real-world case example of alleged deception and criminal conduct (staging a disappearance, bigamy, dowry harassment) and notes that police are pursuing legal action. It might raise awareness that such cases occur and that social media can intersect with criminal investigations.

What it does not give the reader - It does not offer practical steps, educational context about relevant laws, public-safety guidance, or resources readers can use today. It does not help someone plan safety, gather evidence, or navigate the legal process in similar circumstances. It also does not clearly separate sensational elements from verifiable, useful information for someone facing comparable risks.

This block shows gender framing bias. The quote used is "a woman spotted her missing husband in an Instagram reel with another woman, revealing that he had a second wife." The text centers a woman as the key actor who reveals the truth. It puts the wife at the center of the story, framing her discovery as the turning point. This can shape readers to view the wife as moral and proactive, while the husband is cast as the deceiver.

This block shows bias by emphasizing a dowry issue through a family statement. The quote used is "Sheelu’s family had earlier filed a dowry harassment complaint after she was allegedly harassed for a gold chain and a ring and was expelled from the marital home when demands were not met." It foregrounds dowry and material demands as a core cause. It frames the wife’s experience in victim terms and links her to harassment allegations. The wording may steer readers toward seeing the marriage problems primarily through the lens of dowry pressures.

This block shows bias by portraying the husband as deceitful through strong language. The quote used is "Investigations showed that Jitendra had staged his own disappearance and moved to Ludhiana, where he married another woman and started a new life; his online presence helped unravel the deception." It labels his actions as deliberate deception. It attributes intent (staged disappearance) and a calculated subsequent life, which can influence readers to condemn the husband before considering other viewpoints. The sentence uses dramatic phrasing to shape judgment.

This block shows authority framing bias by leaning on official sources. The quote used is "Sandila Circle Officer Santosh Singh stated that a case has been registered under bigamy, fraud, and dowry harassment, and Jitendra is now under police surveillance at the Sandila police station with further legal proceedings underway." It relies on an authority figure to legitimize the case. It presents legal actions as clear and definitive without offering District or accuser perspectives. This can make the outcome feel already decided and elevate police language over other voices.

This block shows bias through the lack of multiple perspectives. The quote used is "The man, Jitendra Kumar alias Bablu, had been missing since 2018 and was married to Sheelu in 2017, with the relationship turning sour within a year." It gives background that explains his behavior but offers no direct voice from Sheelu or other parties. The piece frames the narrative around the husband’s alleged actions with little balance. It can leave readers with a one-sided view of the fault and motives.

The text carries mainly strong feelings of surprise, sadness, anger, fear, and sympathy. Surprise appears when the story suddenly reveals that the missing husband was seen in an Instagram reel with another woman and had a second wife. Sadness is felt about a long, unsolved disappearance since 2018 and the troubled marriage that began in 2017 and went bad within a year. Anger and indignation come from the details of dowry harassment, being expelled from home, and the accusation of foul play. Fear shows up in phrases about a police search with no leads and the risk of more harm, while sympathy rises for Sheelu, who faced harassment and hardship while trying to fix a broken marriage. The later moment of recognition in a social video creates a mix of relief and surprise, and the idea that the online presence helped uncover the truth adds a sense of hope.

These emotions guide the reader to react in a way that cares about fairness and safety. Sympathy toward Sheelu makes the reader root for her to get justice. Anger toward Jitendra and his deception makes the reader disapprove strongly and want accountability. Fear about danger and foul play keeps the reader attentive and worried about what could have happened. The surprise twist when the reel reveals the truth sharpens curiosity and keeps the reader engaged, while relief and hope push the reader to feel that the system can uncover lies and bring the truth to light. Together, these feelings steer readers toward supporting the idea that honest behavior matters, and that the law should act against those who harm others through deceit and bigamy.

The writer uses emotion to persuade by choosing vivid, charged phrases and by telling a clear story arc. Words like staged, foul play, harassment, and fraud paint Jitendra as someone who commits serious wrongs, while terms such as missing, investigation, and police surveillance build a law-and-order tone that earns trust in authorities. The sequence—from a long disappearance to a contemporary reveal in an Instagram reel—uses storytelling tools like suspense and a modern twist to grab attention and strengthen belief in the unfolding truth. Repeating the ideas of harm, family trouble, and legal action creates an emotional rhythm that nudges readers to condemn the deception, feel sympathy for the victim, and accept the need for ongoing legal steps. Overall, emotion is used to shape a moral reaction, encourage caution toward similar acts, and reassure readers that justice can still emerge from complex cases.