HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6083 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, Sri Nouphil Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. After filing of this application, the applicant has also filed an application stating that subsequently Section 315 IPC was added for which, bail was also rejected by the trial court, as such bail is also sought for this section also. 3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.266 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 315 IPC & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Unnao. 4. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 28.04.2022 as sufficient dowry was given. However, the entire matrimonial family used to demand dowry. It was also stated that around eight months ago, poison was administered on her. It was also stated that daughter of the informant was pregnant and was also beaten up and subsequently the information was received that the entire matrimonial family had killed her. Cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is antemortem drowning and no injury mark was visible on the body of the deceased. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused, father-in-law and mother-in-law have been enlarged on bail vide separate orders, the applicant is the husband and is in custody since 20.09.2023 and has no criminal antecedents. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have strongly opposed the bail application by arguing that prior to the incident around eight months ago, efforts for administering poison was done by the family members of the applicant and considering the fact that the victim was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Singh, Anjali Dubey, Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nouphil Ahmad Shubham .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) pregnant, the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. It is argued that two factual witnesses have already been examined. 6. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima faice, the postmortem report does not bear any injury mark on the body of the deceased. With regard to the earlier incident, no statement of the victim is on record to demonstrate that any attempt to administer poison was made by the family members of the applicant. Allegations were levelled against the entire matrimonial family members. Two factual witnesses have already been examined and applicant has no criminal antecedent. There is nothing on record to suggest that applicant if being enlarged on bail can have any adverse effect on trial. This Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant Shubham be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. November 3, 2025 Renu/- BAIL No. 6083 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench