Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34820 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5140 of 2025 Applicant :- Uttam Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant’s daughter was married to the applicant six years ago. At the time of marriage, the informant gave dowry as per his financial capacity. However, the applicant and co-accused later demanded additional dowry in the form of a gold chain and Rs. 1,00,000 in cash. Due to this demand, the deceased was allegedly harassed and subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicant and co-accused persons. It is further alleged that since the deceased was issue-less, she was threatened to kill and also threatened to do second marriage. It has also been alleged that on 12.03.2025, the accused persons assaulted the deceased using kicks, fists, and sticks (lathi and danda). On the same night, she allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case is false, as is evident from the postmortem report, which reveals no injury marks on the body of the deceased except a ligature mark. This contradicts the prosecution version that the deceased was assaulted with kicks, fists, lathi, and danda on the date of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant further draws attention of the Court to the statements of several villagers who in their statements stated that the deceased was distressed due to being issue-less and the accused persons neither demanded dowry nor subjected her to cruelty. It is also submitted that the incident occurred on 12.03.2025, and the inquest proceedings were conducted on 13.03.2025 on the basis of information provided by the ward boy. The inquest and postmortem were carried out in the presence of the complainant on the same day, i.e., 13.03.2025. The last rites of the deceased were also performed in the presence of the complainant. However, the FIR was lodged only on 21.03.2025, after an unexplained delay of about one week, with ulterior motives. Furthermore, it is submitted that the marriage had taken place more than seven years prior to the incident. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 85 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also pointed out that even the statement of Shyama Devi indicates that no demand for dowry was made. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025 without having any criminal antecedents and there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. On due consideration to the delay in lodging the FIR, the statements of independent prosecution witnesses, the absence of any antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased, and the fact that the applicant has no prior criminal history and is in custody since 22.03.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Uttam Kumar Maurya involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 85/2025, under Sections 85/108 BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Mitauli, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) 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. Order Date :- 6.6.2025/R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench