High Court

2. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The marriage of the son of the applicants was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites four years before her death. The applicants and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry thereby leading to her death on 25.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS :

5. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The wife of the informant Smt. Kamla was present at the time of inquest proceedings implying that the informant was also there and there is no inkling of any allegations against the applicants at that stage.

8. The applicants are the in-laws of the deceased being father-in- law and mother-in-law respectively and they have nothing to do with the said offence.

9. They live separately in the same village.

10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 06.11.2024 The applicants are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A.G.A. :

12. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants could not be disputed. CONCLUSION:

13. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2022(6) SCC 599 and has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

14. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

15. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

16. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

17. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

18. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

19. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicants- Mahipal Singh and Smt. Ramwati Devi involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

22. 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 applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

23. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The marriage of the son of the applicants was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites four years before her death. The applicants and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry thereby leading to her death on 25.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS :

5. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The wife of the informant Smt. Kamla was present at the time of inquest proceedings implying that the informant was also there and there is no inkling of any allegations against the applicants at that stage.

8. The applicants are the in-laws of the deceased being father-in- law and mother-in-law respectively and they have nothing to do with the said offence.

9. They live separately in the same village.

10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 06.11.2024 The applicants are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A.G.A. :

12. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants could not be disputed. CONCLUSION:

13. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2022(6) SCC 599 and has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

14. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

15. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

16. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

17. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

18. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

19. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicants- Mahipal Singh and Smt. Ramwati Devi involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

22. 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 applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

23. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)