High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant, who has filed counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. The same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicants, the present applicants (Sharvan Kumar Verma and Geeta Devi) are languishing in jail since 07.05.2025 & 10.05.2025 in Case Crime No.145 of 2025, under Sections 80 (2) & 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Maholi, District-Sitapur.

3.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons including the present applicants. So as to implicate the entire family, the present applicants who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, have been implicated in this case. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicants. The cause of death is hanging. There is no injury on the body of the deceased except one ligature mark which might be caused on account of handing. The deceased received two minor ante-mortem injuries which might also be caused on account of hanging as those injuries are on knee and ankle. There is no prior complaint against the present applicants by the victim (since deceased) or her family members. There might be some scuffle between the husband and wife but the present applicants are not aware of such scuffle.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the present applicants are having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The investigation is going on. The present applicants were having cordial relation with their daughter-in- law (since deceased) and they have never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicants that they shall co-operate in the investigation properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Besides, the applicant No.2 being a lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicants.

7. Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.CA-1 which is a prescribed copy of the Pendrive, which has been filed with the counter affidavit, wherein the victim has levelled allegation against the family members of her husband through voice recording. He has submitted that the present applicants being parents of the husband of the deceased, therefore, they are equally responsible for the mysterious death of the deceased.

8. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has further submitted that the investigation is going on and there is evidence and the certificate would be procured as per Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, during the course of investigation.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there are general allegations against all the accused persons including the present applicants; no specific role has been attributed to the present applicants; the cause of death is hanging; there is no injury on the body of the deceased except one ligature mark which might be caused on account of handing; the deceased received two minor ante-mortem injuries which might also be caused on account of hanging as those injuries are on knee and ankle; there is no prior complaint against the present applicants by the victim (since deceased) or her family members; there might be some scuffle between the husband and wife but the present applicants are not aware of such scuffle; the present applicants were having cordial relation with their daughter-in-law (since deceased); the undertaking that she shall co-operate in the investigation properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order; the fact that the applicant No.2 being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicants may be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicants (Sharvan Kumar Verma and Geeta Devi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (v) Immediately after release from jail both the applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 48 hours from their release to cooperate in the investigation and they shall further cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigation Officer called for till filing of the police report, failing which, the bail granted to the present applicants may be cancelled on the application being filed by the prosecution or the informant. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant, who has filed counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. The same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicants, the present applicants (Sharvan Kumar Verma and Geeta Devi) are languishing in jail since 07.05.2025 & 10.05.2025 in Case Crime No.145 of 2025, under Sections 80 (2) & 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Maholi, District-Sitapur.

3.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons including the present applicants. So as to implicate the entire family, the present applicants who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, have been implicated in this case. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicants. The cause of death is hanging. There is no injury on the body of the deceased except one ligature mark which might be caused on account of handing. The deceased received two minor ante-mortem injuries which might also be caused on account of hanging as those injuries are on knee and ankle. There is no prior complaint against the present applicants by the victim (since deceased) or her family members. There might be some scuffle between the husband and wife but the present applicants are not aware of such scuffle.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the present applicants are having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The investigation is going on. The present applicants were having cordial relation with their daughter-in- law (since deceased) and they have never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicants that they shall co-operate in the investigation properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Besides, the applicant No.2 being a lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicants.

7. Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.CA-1 which is a prescribed copy of the Pendrive, which has been filed with the counter affidavit, wherein the victim has levelled allegation against the family members of her husband through voice recording. He has submitted that the present applicants being parents of the husband of the deceased, therefore, they are equally responsible for the mysterious death of the deceased.

8. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has further submitted that the investigation is going on and there is evidence and the certificate would be procured as per Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, during the course of investigation.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there are general allegations against all the accused persons including the present applicants; no specific role has been attributed to the present applicants; the cause of death is hanging; there is no injury on the body of the deceased except one ligature mark which might be caused on account of handing; the deceased received two minor ante-mortem injuries which might also be caused on account of hanging as those injuries are on knee and ankle; there is no prior complaint against the present applicants by the victim (since deceased) or her family members; there might be some scuffle between the husband and wife but the present applicants are not aware of such scuffle; the present applicants were having cordial relation with their daughter-in-law (since deceased); the undertaking that she shall co-operate in the investigation properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order; the fact that the applicant No.2 being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicants may be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicants (Sharvan Kumar Verma and Geeta Devi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (v) Immediately after release from jail both the applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 48 hours from their release to cooperate in the investigation and they shall further cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigation Officer called for till filing of the police report, failing which, the bail granted to the present applicants may be cancelled on the application being filed by the prosecution or the informant. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench