Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60228 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11236 of 2025 Applicant :- Dharm Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.515 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 354 Kha, 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the victim and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The instant case is a clear-cut case of misuse of dowry laws and rape laws. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no evidence that the applicant had committed the offence of rape with the victim. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that even the provisions of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. has not been complied with, as such, it is stated that she had handed over the application in person to the S.S.P. on 14.05.2024. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599 has categorically opined that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Dharm Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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 him in accordance with law. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad