Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123683 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24669 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajkumar Yadav Alias Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Man Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 315(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Chirgaon, District- Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. 5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The co-accused person Smt. Suneeta Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased person, has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4484 of 2025. The case of the applicant is at better footing to co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.4.2025 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. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that applicant is the father-in- law of the deceased person and the mother-in-law of the deceased person has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail coupled by the fact that FIR is delayed by more than one day, 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- Rajkumar Yadav Alias Bablu, 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 pressurize/intimidate 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 :- 28.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad