Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121278 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24364 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Veer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, 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.109 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and added Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Junawai, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as he lives separately to the husband wife duo. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is a certificate given by the Gram Pradhan to the effect. The informant and other family members were present at the time of inquest proceedings taken up on 11.04.2025 itself, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the informant and other family members were present at the time of 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. 9. Let the applicant- Ram Veer, 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. 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 :- 24.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad