Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115715 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23469 of 2025 Applicant :- Soti And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Prakash,Ramesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicants was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites in the month of January, 2025, and subsequent to it, the applicants and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 13.4.2025 at about 05:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The applicant no.1 is the father-in- law and applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased person. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that it is not mentioned in the FIR as to what was demanded in dowry, but subsequently it has come up in the statement of witnesses that there was a demand of Rs.1 lakh and motorcycle. Learned counsel has stated that it is an admitted fact that it was a love marriage between the deceased and the son of the applicants and the marriage was solemnized in a temple and no pleasantries were exchanged between the parties, as such, there was no occasion for demand of dowry whatsoever. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the allegation of demand of dowry has been added after legal consultation during investigation. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 16.4.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the police was hand in glove with the applicants as they brand clout in the society and under their duress the original FIR has not been instituted rather the informant has been forced to pen down what was dictated at the police station. The said attitude of the police speaks volume of the said absence of factum of demand of dowry, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Learned counsel has further stated that there are two other injuries in addition to the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased person. 9. The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 has categorically stated 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 that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and the fact that in the FIR it is not mentioned as to what was demanded in dowry and the applicants being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person, 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- Soti and Jamuni, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad