Counsel for Opposite Party(s) v. Manish Yadav

District Firozabad during the pendency of trial. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant who is father of the deceased-Neha got a first information report lodged on 20.06.2025 against Shivkant @ Kalu, Triveni Devi and Kamlesh Singh who are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively making allegation inter-alia that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized two years back with Shivkant @ Kalu (present applicant) but after the said marriage, there was a consistent demand of dowry (a gold chain, a buffalo and Rs.50,000/-). F.I.R. also alleges that since the complainant could not fulfill their additional demand of dowry, therefore, on 09.02.2025, his daughter was done to death. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that with regard to an incident dated 09.02.2025, impugned F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 04 months and 11 days i.e. on 20.06.2025 without any plausible explanation of delay. It is pointed out that it is an admitted fact that the information about the death of the deceased was immediately given by the family members of the applicant to the complainant on 09.02.2025 at about 10:00 o'clock. The allegation levelled 2 BAIL No. 31185 of 2025 against the applicant with regard to alleged demand of dowry is wholly false and against the evidence on record. It is neither a case of dowry death nor a case of murder but a case of suicide committed by the deceased. It is also pointed out that the deceased died by hanging herself leaving behind a little child aged about 02 years and 05 months, who is presently living in the house of the applicant. It is also submitted that after arrest of the applicant, the complainant did not make any effort to keep the son of the deceased with them for taking his care. It is next submitted that co-accused Kamlesh and Smt. Triveni, under similar accusation, have been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27115 of 2025. Lastly it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 22.06.2025. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per post-mortem report of the deceased, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and except a ligature mark around the neck, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. The information about the death of the deceased was immediately given to her parents and they were very much present at the time of inquest proceedings, however the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 04 months and 11 days. 7-There is no dispute that the parameters for bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by 3 BAIL No. 31185 of 2025 the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. 8--Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. 9-Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 10-Let the applicant-Shivkant @ Kalu, 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 before the release of the applicant on bail. 11-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. 12-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 11, 2025 Saurabh (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

District Firozabad during the pendency of trial. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant who is father of the deceased-Neha got a first information report lodged on 20.06.2025 against Shivkant @ Kalu, Triveni Devi and Kamlesh Singh who are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively making allegation inter-alia that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized two years back with Shivkant @ Kalu (present applicant) but after the said marriage, there was a consistent demand of dowry (a gold chain, a buffalo and Rs.50,000/-). F.I.R. also alleges that since the complainant could not fulfill their additional demand of dowry, therefore, on 09.02.2025, his daughter was done to death. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that with regard to an incident dated 09.02.2025, impugned F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 04 months and 11 days i.e. on 20.06.2025 without any plausible explanation of delay. It is pointed out that it is an admitted fact that the information about the death of the deceased was immediately given by the family members of the applicant to the complainant on 09.02.2025 at about 10:00 o'clock. The allegation levelled 2 BAIL No. 31185 of 2025 against the applicant with regard to alleged demand of dowry is wholly false and against the evidence on record. It is neither a case of dowry death nor a case of murder but a case of suicide committed by the deceased. It is also pointed out that the deceased died by hanging herself leaving behind a little child aged about 02 years and 05 months, who is presently living in the house of the applicant. It is also submitted that after arrest of the applicant, the complainant did not make any effort to keep the son of the deceased with them for taking his care. It is next submitted that co-accused Kamlesh and Smt. Triveni, under similar accusation, have been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27115 of 2025. Lastly it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 22.06.2025. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per post-mortem report of the deceased, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and except a ligature mark around the neck, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. The information about the death of the deceased was immediately given to her parents and they were very much present at the time of inquest proceedings, however the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 04 months and 11 days. 7-There is no dispute that the parameters for bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by 3 BAIL No. 31185 of 2025 the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. 8--Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. 9-Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 10-Let the applicant-Shivkant @ Kalu, 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 before the release of the applicant on bail. 11-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. 12-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 11, 2025 Saurabh (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad