Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37335 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7919 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Reeta Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Shukla,Dr. Pooja Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwas Saraswat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. Though the notice has been given to the learned counsel for the informant apprising the fact that the case has been mentioned in the morning, but no one has appeared on her/ his behalf. 3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Smt. Reeta Singh) is languishing in jail since 16.03.2024 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0088 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Paraspur, District-Gonda. 4.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. The present applicant was having cordial relation with her daughter-in-law (since deceased) and she has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. So as to implicate the entire family, the present applicant, who is mother-in-law, has been implicated in this case. The cause of death is asphyxia on account of anti-mortem injuries. The victim has not received any other bodily injuries except the anti-mortem injuries. 6. Dr. Pooja Singh has stated that she has filed supplementary affidavit on 17.04.2025 enclosing therewith the copy of the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 to show that both the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. PW-1 is the father of the deceased whereas PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. Both the aforesaid witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. Dr. Pooja Singh has stated that the parents of the deceased are the star witnesses and the PW-1 was the informant also. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. She undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that she 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. Besides, being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S. 7. On the other hand, 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, she is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant. 8.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the parents of the deceased (PW-1 & PW-2), who are the star witnesses, have turned hostile; the period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. more than fifteen months; there is no criminal history against the present applicant and the undertaking that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order; the fact that she being a lady, she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant (Smt. Reeta Singh) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (i) 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. 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench