HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24737 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Adalhat, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant Dhiraji Devi, who is mother of the deceased-Vandana Devi got a first information report lodged on 13.11.2024 against Ravi Shankar, Govind, Ashish, Soni, Tejbal who are husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in- law of the deceased as well as other family members of the applicant stating inter alia that marriage of her daughter-Vandana was solemnized with the applicant on 30.11.2020, whereas applicant was already having illicit relation with another woman. After some months of marriage her daughter's in-laws started demanding dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a gold chain. On 04.08.2024 also she was beaten. On 07.11.2024 applicant informed brother-in-law (jeeja) of the deceased that Vandana has died on account of consuming poison. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case. Information about the said unfortunate incident was immediately given by the applicant to the brother-in-law ( jeeja) of the deceased. The allegation of demand of dowry is false and against the evidence on record. It is also pointed out that during investigation name of accused Ashish and Tejbal who are brother-in- law and father-in-law of the deceased have been exonerated and charge sheet has been submitted only against applicant-Ravishankar, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravishankar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Govind and Soni, whereas Govind and Soni have been granted bail. Much emphasis has been given by contending that as per post mortem report of the deceased cause of death could not be ascertained therefore, viscera was preserved. Referring the statement of Dr. Ankita Kashyap who for the first time treated the deceased and recorded her statement, has stated that she consumed sulfas. Deceased died during her treatment. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.11.2024 having no criminal antecedent and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the deceased died by consuming sulfas. Other co-accused Govind and Soni, who are brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail and till date no prosecution witness has been examined before the trial court, whereas applicant is in jail since 13.11.2024. There is no dispute that the parameters for bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. In view of the provisions under Sections 117 and 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Ravishankar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of BAIL No. 24737 of 2025 2 the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 17, 2025 Kashifa BAIL No. 24737 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad