High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person about three years before the occurrence. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs. five lacs as dowry and thereby led her to death on 13.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 21 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. It is admitted by the informant that it was a love marriage, as such no pleasantries were exchanged at the time of marriage and no question of demand of dowry arises as the allegations have been plainly made in the FIR.

7. Learned counsel has next stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, as such the applicant is entitled for bail.

8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.03.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the named accused person in the FIR and there was a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, as such he is not entitled for bail.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599, whereby it has been 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. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant lives separately in the house opposite to the house of husband of the informant.

11. 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.

12. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized 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".

14. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statute like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

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

16. 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 applicant 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.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and the applicant being mother-in-law of the deceased person, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Smt. Rajesh Kumari, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 6.8.2025/Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person about three years before the occurrence. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs. five lacs as dowry and thereby led her to death on 13.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 21 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. It is admitted by the informant that it was a love marriage, as such no pleasantries were exchanged at the time of marriage and no question of demand of dowry arises as the allegations have been plainly made in the FIR.

7. Learned counsel has next stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, as such the applicant is entitled for bail.

8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.03.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the named accused person in the FIR and there was a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, as such he is not entitled for bail.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599, whereby it has been 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. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant lives separately in the house opposite to the house of husband of the informant.

11. 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.

12. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized 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".

14. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statute like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

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

16. 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 applicant 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.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and the applicant being mother-in-law of the deceased person, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Smt. Rajesh Kumari, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 6.8.2025/Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad