Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3429 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 408 of 2025 Applicant :- Murli Opposite Party :- State Of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava,Anuj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1.Heard Sri Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Ms. Priyanka Yadav, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party, the same is taken on record. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Murli) is languishing in jail since 24.10.2024 in Case Crime No.450 of 2024, under Sections 85 & 80 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Hargaon, District-Sitapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant is a father-in-law of the deceased. In the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.), no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. The cause of death is Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. There is one ligature mark around the neck which might be caused on account of hanging. There are two more minor injuries and the present applicant is absolutely unaware as to how the deceased received those injuries. There might be any scuffle or dispute between the husband and wife i.e. his son and his daughter-in-law but he has not caused such injuries as he was in the hospital on the date of incident as his wife met with an incident and leg of her wife was to be operated. There is no independent eye witness account in the incidence in question. As a matter of fact, the present applicant, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, was having cordial relations with his daughter-in-law and he has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. He has nothing to do with the family affairs of his son and his wife. There is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party have, however, opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant 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. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons; the present applicant, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, was having cordial relations with his daughter- in-law and he has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members; there is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant and the undertaking that the present applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant (Murli) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench