Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116669 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16045 of 2025 Applicant :- Shahzad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Rai,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the brother-in-law (Devor) of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations are per se false. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. There is no mentioning of any demand of dowry in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased are simple in nature in addition to the ligature mark. The cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 9. 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that there is no mentioning of fact as to what was demanded as dowry in the FIR, 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. 11. Let the applicant- Shahzad, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 18.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad