HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8856 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.266 of 2025 under Section 80(2), 85, 115(2) BNS and Seciton 3/4 Dowry Prohibition nAct, Police Station Pihani District Hardoi. In the prosecution case it is alleged that the informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter on 12.06.2019 with Kaushal Kumar according to Hindu rites and rituals, and sufficient dowry was given. However, the named accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and demanded additional dowry in the form of a motorcycle and a gold chain, and on non-fulfilment of the same, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is further alleged that when the informant’s brother, Gaurishankar, visited the matrimonial home of the deceased, he found her weeping. She informed him that Kaushal Kumar and others were continuously pressurizing her to bring additional dowry in the form of a motorcycle and a gold chain, otherwise they would kill her. It is also alleged that on 09.06.2025 at about 3:00 p.m., when the said demand was not met, Kaushal Kumar and his family members strangulated the deceased with a gamcha, causing her death. Later, one Kapil informed the informant over the phone that the deceased had died due to fever. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Chhaya Devi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) However, upon reaching the house of the accused, the body of the deceased was found lying with a towel (gamcha) around her neck. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the prosecution case stand falsified by the postmortem report, wherein the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. No other antemortem injury, except the ligature mark, was found. The alleged gamcha has not been recovered. The FIR has been lodged with a delay of 40 days. The inquest was conducted in the presence of accused nos. 1 and 2 as well as the complainant, yet no objection or complaint was raised at that time, rendering the FIR an afterthought. It is further submitted that the applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, is innocent, has no criminal history, is aged about 58 years, and has been falsely implicated. She is in custody since 17.07.2025 and charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with witnesses, and in case she is released on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the factual aspects as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, a lady aged about 58 years, having no criminal antecedents, the cause of death as per postmortem report being asphyxia due to antemortem hanging with no other injury except the ligature mark, the unexplained delay of 40 days in lodging the FIR, the inquest having been conducted in the presence of the complainant and accused nos. 1 and 2 without any objection being raised at that stage, the alleged gamcha not having been recovered, charge-sheet having already been filed, coupled with the fact that only general allegations have been made against all family members without any specific role assigned to the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the BAIL No. 8856 of 2025 2 applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Smt. Chhaya Devi be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial, (ii) The applicant will not pressurize or 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 such person 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 she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court, and 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 her counsel, and in case of her absence without sufficient cause the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS), (vi) 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, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). September 16, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8856 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench