Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6611 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46425 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Sharma,Santosh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shashank Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Sen Paschim Para, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of applicants' son was solemnized with the informant's sister as per Hindu Rites on 03.12.2022. The applicants and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.50,000/- and a gold chain, thereby leading to her death on 13.07.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person and have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the cause of death of deceased was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is also argued that it was the husband of the deceased person, who had informed the police station about the death of his wife. The deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of her husband in the night, as such, the applicants are entitled for bail. 7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 01.10.2024 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the involvement of the applicants are but evident as the door was closed and she may be put to death by the applicants and other co- accused persons. However, they could not dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history. 9. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 10. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2022(6) SCC 599 and has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicants- Rajesh Kumar Shukla and Sunita Shukla, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicants 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 351BNSS. 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 them in accordance with law. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 15. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad