Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39391 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 195 of 2025 Applicant :- Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 10.11.2024 in Case Crime No. 794 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (here-in-after referred to as the "BNS") and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Khairighat,, District- Bahraich. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. 4. Attention has been drawn toward the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been shown as 03.11.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 06.11.2024 without explaining the delay. In the FIR, allegations have been levelled against the six accused persons who are the family members including the present applicant, who is father-in-law of the victim (since deceased). Since the allegations are false and misconceived therefore after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet has been filed only against the co-accused Ayyub (husband of the deceased) and the present applicant. No chargesheet has been filed against the other co-accused persons. The present applicant was having cordial relation with his daughter-in-law (since deceased) and he has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. The present applicant is having no concerned with the family affairs of his son or his wife (since deceased) as he was separately living with his wife, as recitals to this effect has been given in para-14 of the bail application. The cause of death is strangulation and the deceased received 7 anti mortem injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there might be some dispute between the husband and wife but the present applicant is absolutely unaware about the aforesaid fact inasmuch as he was not living with them. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history. He undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R. and other material available on record, the fact that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, the undertaking of the present applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the present applicant Kallu be released on 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 court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant 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. 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 him in accordance with law. (v) The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench