Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36301 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5553 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajkumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Phoolbehad, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the mother-in-law and was not involved in committing any offence. He submits that the post mortem report says that the death is due to the ante mortem hanging and there is no ante mortem injury over the body of the deceased. He submits that there are general allegations of demand of dowry whereas the dowry was never demanded by the applicant. He further submits that the Jeth and Jethani have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5418 of 2025 and the role of the present applicant is identical to them as such she is seeking parity. Further submission is that the applicant has no previous criminal history and she is languishing in jail since 30.04.2025 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he could not dispute the fact that the identically situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. 5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.04.2025; prima facie, the present applicant is the mother-in-law and was not involved in committing any offence; as per the post mortem report, the death is due to the ante mortem hanging and there is no ante mortem injury over the body of the deceased; there are general allegations of demand of dowry where the dowry was never demanded by the applicant; the present applicant is seeking parity to Jeth and Jethani, who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the role is identical to the same; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 7. Let the applicant- Rajkumari involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC (Now Section 269 BNS); (3) 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. (Now Section 351 BNSS); and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (Now Section 209 BNS). The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 24.6.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench