Radha State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko v. Counsel for

"1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash, learned AGA for the State.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has requested that he may be permitted to implead the informant/complainant as opposite party no.2 during the course of the day.

3. On the aforesaid request, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the informant/ complainant with full details as opposite party no.2 during the course of the day.

4. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

5. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly. 2 NABAIL No. 898 of 2025

6. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending her arrest in Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Purwa, District - Unnao.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the victim (since deceased) has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 14.05.2025 but the FIR has been lodged on 18.05.2025 without explaining the delay. The allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and her son (husband of the deceased). Since cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera has been preserved. There is no ante-mortem injury on the body of the victim, however, some old abrasions have been shown. Relations of the present applicant with her daughter-in- law were cordial and she never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. She is absolutely unaware as to what is the cause of death and if it is a case of poisoning, she is absolutely unaware as to why her daughter-in-law had taken poison. There might be some dispute between husband and wife but she is absolutely unaware about that. Therefore, her liberty may be protected being lady. The applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the order. Therefore, liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

8. Matter requires consideration.

9. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

10. List in the week commencing 25.08.2025 within top ten cases.

11. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Radha shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- I. that the present applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 28.07.2025 at 11:00 A.M. sharp to cooperate in the investigation and shall further cooperate in the investigation till filing of the police report failing which this interim protection may be withdrawn. 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; 3 NABAIL No. 898 of 2025 III. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; IV. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; V. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet without collecting the cogent and tangible evidence. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 23.07.2025, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and she shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. August 25, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash, learned AGA for the State.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has requested that he may be permitted to implead the informant/complainant as opposite party no.2 during the course of the day.

3. On the aforesaid request, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the informant/ complainant with full details as opposite party no.2 during the course of the day.

4. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

5. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly. 2 NABAIL No. 898 of 2025

6. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending her arrest in Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Purwa, District - Unnao.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the victim (since deceased) has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 14.05.2025 but the FIR has been lodged on 18.05.2025 without explaining the delay. The allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and her son (husband of the deceased). Since cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera has been preserved. There is no ante-mortem injury on the body of the victim, however, some old abrasions have been shown. Relations of the present applicant with her daughter-in- law were cordial and she never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. She is absolutely unaware as to what is the cause of death and if it is a case of poisoning, she is absolutely unaware as to why her daughter-in-law had taken poison. There might be some dispute between husband and wife but she is absolutely unaware about that. Therefore, her liberty may be protected being lady. The applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the order. Therefore, liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

8. Matter requires consideration.

9. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

10. List in the week commencing 25.08.2025 within top ten cases.

11. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Radha shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- I. that the present applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 28.07.2025 at 11:00 A.M. sharp to cooperate in the investigation and shall further cooperate in the investigation till filing of the police report failing which this interim protection may be withdrawn. 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; 3 NABAIL No. 898 of 2025 III. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; IV. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; V. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet without collecting the cogent and tangible evidence. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 23.07.2025, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and she shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. August 25, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench