High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Advocate learned Additional representing the State. Government

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 381 of 2024, under Sections 85, 3(5), 80(2), 92 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant-Ramgopal who is father of the deceased Anuradha lodged a first information report on 11.09.2024 against Shiv Dutt alias Chhotu, Karan (applicant) and Vimla Devi who are husband, father- in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively making allegations inter alia that marriage of his daughter-Anuradha was solemnized on 26.04.2021 with Shiv Dutt alias Chhotu. Since Anuradha had no brother, her in-laws used to beat her demanding agricultural land in dowry and threatened that if agricultural land is not given in dowry, they will kill her. On account of non-fulfillment of their demand, they killed her and thereafter hanged her.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he was living along with his wife and his elder son-Saurabh Kumar. He had no concern with the matrimonial affairs of the deceased with her husband. It is also pointed out that Saloni, who is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased, had, first of all, seen the deceased while she was hanging from the roof and given information about the said incident to the complainant, who in turn informed the police by dialing 112. On the said information, police reached the spot and found the body of the deceased hanging inside the room and door of said room was bolted from inside. The dead body of the deceased was taken down after breaking/ opening the door of the room and photography of the said proceeding was also conducted. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is argued that, the prosecution case, that the deceased was killed and later on she was hanged, is false and against the evidence on record. Referring the postmortem report of the deceased, it is also argued that except the ligature mark, no injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant stands on identical footing to that of co- accused Vimla Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7079 of 2025, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2024 having no criminal history to his credit and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the door of the room, in which dead body of the deceased was found hanging, was bolted from inside.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled without attributing specific role to the applicant. Information about the said incident was promptly given by Saloni who is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased, which shows the normal conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is also relevant in the light of Section 6 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding Section 8 of the Evidence Act). It is not in dispute that statement of Saloni who had given information about the incident to the parents of the deceased, has not been recorded by the investigating officer nor she has been made the prosecution witness of charge- sheet. As per statement of Constable-1063 Vikas Yadav, on receiving information, when he reached at the spot, he found that dead body of the deceased was hanging from sari noose inside the room and the door of the room was bolted from inside, which was opened/broken as per rules and videography was also done. It is also not in dispute that applicant was living separately from the deceased and her husband, and deceased committed suicide in a place, where she was living along with her husband. I also find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Vimla Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, under similar accusation has been granted bail as noted above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, evidence, complicity of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

7. Let the applicant-Karan alias Ram Karan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant 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. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

8. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Kashifa

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Advocate learned Additional representing the State. Government

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 381 of 2024, under Sections 85, 3(5), 80(2), 92 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant-Ramgopal who is father of the deceased Anuradha lodged a first information report on 11.09.2024 against Shiv Dutt alias Chhotu, Karan (applicant) and Vimla Devi who are husband, father- in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively making allegations inter alia that marriage of his daughter-Anuradha was solemnized on 26.04.2021 with Shiv Dutt alias Chhotu. Since Anuradha had no brother, her in-laws used to beat her demanding agricultural land in dowry and threatened that if agricultural land is not given in dowry, they will kill her. On account of non-fulfillment of their demand, they killed her and thereafter hanged her.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he was living along with his wife and his elder son-Saurabh Kumar. He had no concern with the matrimonial affairs of the deceased with her husband. It is also pointed out that Saloni, who is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased, had, first of all, seen the deceased while she was hanging from the roof and given information about the said incident to the complainant, who in turn informed the police by dialing 112. On the said information, police reached the spot and found the body of the deceased hanging inside the room and door of said room was bolted from inside. The dead body of the deceased was taken down after breaking/ opening the door of the room and photography of the said proceeding was also conducted. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is argued that, the prosecution case, that the deceased was killed and later on she was hanged, is false and against the evidence on record. Referring the postmortem report of the deceased, it is also argued that except the ligature mark, no injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant stands on identical footing to that of co- accused Vimla Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7079 of 2025, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2024 having no criminal history to his credit and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the door of the room, in which dead body of the deceased was found hanging, was bolted from inside.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled without attributing specific role to the applicant. Information about the said incident was promptly given by Saloni who is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased, which shows the normal conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is also relevant in the light of Section 6 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding Section 8 of the Evidence Act). It is not in dispute that statement of Saloni who had given information about the incident to the parents of the deceased, has not been recorded by the investigating officer nor she has been made the prosecution witness of charge- sheet. As per statement of Constable-1063 Vikas Yadav, on receiving information, when he reached at the spot, he found that dead body of the deceased was hanging from sari noose inside the room and the door of the room was bolted from inside, which was opened/broken as per rules and videography was also done. It is also not in dispute that applicant was living separately from the deceased and her husband, and deceased committed suicide in a place, where she was living along with her husband. I also find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Vimla Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, under similar accusation has been granted bail as noted above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, evidence, complicity of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

7. Let the applicant-Karan alias Ram Karan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant 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. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

8. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Kashifa