State of U.P v. Party

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased and he has been falsely 2 BAIL No. 32848 of 2025 implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused persons but it has not been specified that what was the demand in dowry and no specific role has been attributed to the applicant. It is also pointed out that information about the said unfortunate incident was given by Jai Prakash (husband of the deceased) to the complainant on 10.01.2025, which has been admitted by the complainant in his application dated

10.01.2025 addressed Incharge Inspector, Police Station Mughalsarai, District Chandauli. It is further pointed out that husband of the deceased, namely, Jai Prakash was present at the time of inquest proceeding, which was conducted on 10.01.2025 and thereafter post mortem of the deceased was done on 11.01.2025, which indicates that the deceased died by committing suicide. Thereafter dead body of the deceased was cremated by the applicant and other family members but till that time, no allegation was made against the applicant and his other family members. Later on, the complainant got the F.I.R. lodged after six days of the incident on

16.01.2025. The co-accused Basanti Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

23.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32674 of

2025. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and except the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 3 BAIL No. 32848 of 2025

16.01.2025 after six days of the incident which took place on

10.01.2025 and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant and his family members were also present at the spot and also participated in the inquest proceeding, which shows natural conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is one of the relevant factor for considering bail. I also find that co-accused Basanti Devi has been granted bail as noted above. Here it is also relevant to mention that the parameters for considering the 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 Sections 117 and 118 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, 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 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. The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. 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, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Om Prakash be released on bail in the aforesaid 4 BAIL No. 32848 of 2025 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, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 24, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased and he has been falsely 2 BAIL No. 32848 of 2025 implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused persons but it has not been specified that what was the demand in dowry and no specific role has been attributed to the applicant. It is also pointed out that information about the said unfortunate incident was given by Jai Prakash (husband of the deceased) to the complainant on 10.01.2025, which has been admitted by the complainant in his application dated

10.01.2025 addressed Incharge Inspector, Police Station Mughalsarai, District Chandauli. It is further pointed out that husband of the deceased, namely, Jai Prakash was present at the time of inquest proceeding, which was conducted on 10.01.2025 and thereafter post mortem of the deceased was done on 11.01.2025, which indicates that the deceased died by committing suicide. Thereafter dead body of the deceased was cremated by the applicant and other family members but till that time, no allegation was made against the applicant and his other family members. Later on, the complainant got the F.I.R. lodged after six days of the incident on

16.01.2025. The co-accused Basanti Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

23.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32674 of

2025. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and except the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 3 BAIL No. 32848 of 2025

16.01.2025 after six days of the incident which took place on

10.01.2025 and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant and his family members were also present at the spot and also participated in the inquest proceeding, which shows natural conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is one of the relevant factor for considering bail. I also find that co-accused Basanti Devi has been granted bail as noted above. Here it is also relevant to mention that the parameters for considering the 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 Sections 117 and 118 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, 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 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. The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. 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, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Om Prakash be released on bail in the aforesaid 4 BAIL No. 32848 of 2025 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, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 24, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad