High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, who is father-in- law of the deceased and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43142 of 2024 after considering the fact that his daughter-in-law died due to strangulation and it could not be reflected that he resided separately.

4. He further submits that he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the bail application of his wife i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased Rambha Devi has been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29775 of 2024 and however, co-accused Rambha Devi was the mother-in-law of the deceased but as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is at par with her.

5. He further submits that even informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased and her sister during trial did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and their statements recorded before the trial court have been annexed alongwith the instant second bail application.

6. He further submits that however, deceased died due to strangulation but from the statement of the father i.e. P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court, it reflects that applicant alongwith his wife resided separately.

7. He further submits that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since

19.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that he is father-in-law of the deceased and his daughter-in-law died due to strangulation in her matrimonial home and there is no evidence that applicant resided separately but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the bail application of his wife i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased Rambha Devi has been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

10.07.2025 and as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is at par with her.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased and her sister during trial did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

10. He also could not dispute the fact that from the statement of the informant i.e. P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court, it reflects that applicant alongwith his wife resided separately.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 19.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 after considering the fact that he is father-in-law of the deceased and his daughter-in-law died due to strangulation in her matrimonial home and there is no evidence that applicant resided separately but it reflects, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the bail application of his wife i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased Rambha Devi has been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is at par with her.

14. Further, informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased and her sister during trial did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

15. Further, from the statement of the informant i.e. P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court, which has been annexed alongwith instant second bail application, it reflects that applicant alongwith his wife resided separately.

16. Further, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 19.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Ashok Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case 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) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, who is father-in- law of the deceased and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43142 of 2024 after considering the fact that his daughter-in-law died due to strangulation and it could not be reflected that he resided separately.

4. He further submits that he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the bail application of his wife i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased Rambha Devi has been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29775 of 2024 and however, co-accused Rambha Devi was the mother-in-law of the deceased but as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is at par with her.

5. He further submits that even informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased and her sister during trial did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and their statements recorded before the trial court have been annexed alongwith the instant second bail application.

6. He further submits that however, deceased died due to strangulation but from the statement of the father i.e. P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court, it reflects that applicant alongwith his wife resided separately.

7. He further submits that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since

19.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that he is father-in-law of the deceased and his daughter-in-law died due to strangulation in her matrimonial home and there is no evidence that applicant resided separately but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the bail application of his wife i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased Rambha Devi has been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

10.07.2025 and as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is at par with her.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased and her sister during trial did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

10. He also could not dispute the fact that from the statement of the informant i.e. P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court, it reflects that applicant alongwith his wife resided separately.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 19.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 after considering the fact that he is father-in-law of the deceased and his daughter-in-law died due to strangulation in her matrimonial home and there is no evidence that applicant resided separately but it reflects, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the bail application of his wife i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased Rambha Devi has been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is at par with her.

14. Further, informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased and her sister during trial did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

15. Further, from the statement of the informant i.e. P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court, which has been annexed alongwith instant second bail application, it reflects that applicant alongwith his wife resided separately.

16. Further, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 19.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Ashok Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case 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) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad