Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108141 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17196 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Sayma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar,Parul Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Kavita Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.135 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about twelve days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the inquest proceedings of the deceased person were complete on 02.06.2024 itself and the informant was panch witness to the said inquest proceedings, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication after legal consultation. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.8.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant concealed the fact of death of the deceased and even the brother-in-law of the deceased has categorically stated that the applicant and other family members used to subject the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry. 7. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the informant was in a severe shock after the death of his daughter, as such, could not institute the FIR. 8. 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. 9. 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 facts that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and the informant is panch witness no.4 in the inquest proceedings, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Smt. Sayma, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 9.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad