Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6586 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44078 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Lakshami Kunwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 295 of 2024, U/S 85, 115(2), 351(2), 80 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ecotech- 3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The son of the applicant is stated to have married the daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites on 4.12.2023. The applicant and her son are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of Rs. 15 lakhs for a four-wheeler as dowry, thereby leading to her death on 30.7.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize her. 6. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. 7. The informant was very much present at the time of inquest proceedings undertaken on 30.7.2024 itself, although there is over- writing in the report of the proceedings itself and it is over-written as 31.7.2024 but the time of completion of the proceedings is 13.30 pm, which itself is before the institution of the FIR. The informant has not whispered a single word against the applicant at the time of inquest proceedings, and he is panch witness no. 1 in it. 8. The applicant is a widow and lives at Mirzapur, which is at a distance of about 700 kilometers from the place of occurrence. Even during post-mortem examination of the deceased, no external injury was observed, although she has sustained internal injuries. 9. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 10. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.8.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 11. The bail application has been opposed, but the fact that applicant has no criminal history has not been disputed. CONCLUSION: 12. 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. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she 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 another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 13. 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 AGA for the State. 14. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Vijay Lakshami Kunwar who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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 her in accordance with law. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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 :- 15.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad