Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42971 Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6834 of 2025 Applicant :- Jaya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 199 of 2025, under sections 85, 80(2) of the B.N.S. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Padua, District-Kheri. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was performed with the son of the applicant and the applicant including the family members were demanding dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty and as a result whereof, she jumped into Sharda Canal. The complainant and his family members ran after her and found her slippers and 'Dupatta' and thereafter, with the help of the village persons, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the first information report itself creates material doubt in the story of the prosecution as the incident is said to have taken place on 28-04-2025, whereas the post-mortem report is evident that the death is of 4 days ago i.e. of 24-04-2025. He next added that the very basis and genesis of the first information report itself is contradictory. He submits that there is no injury over the body of the injured, which prima-facie, shows that no cruelty is committed upon the deceased.He further submits that infact the deceased went away with her own 'Maika' on 25-04-2025 and on 28-04-2025, the applicant and the family members were informed that their daughter-in-law had died due to drowning. He also submits that the whole story is false and concocted on it's first instance and there is no truthfulness in the same. He submits that the applicant is a woman and she is 50 years of age and has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 30-04-2025. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be granted bail. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and the burden lies upon the applicant so as to prove that she was not involved in committing the offence. He added that the Investigating Officer has found that the applicant is also involved in committing offence and as such, she is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that as per the first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 28-04- 2025, whereas the post-mortem report reveals that the same is of 4 days ago, which dents the story of the prosecution. This court has also noticed the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is explained in paragraph no. 33 of the bail application; she is a woman and is languishing in jail since 30-04-2025 coupled with the fact that she has undertaken that if she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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. Let the applicant-Jaya 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 of the Indian Penal Code; (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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. 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 :- 25.7.2025 AKS Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench