Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127718 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25083 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Gomti Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Kumar,Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 618 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites about four years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and thereby led her to death on 08.11.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no dying declaration of the deceased person. It is true that the deceased had sustained two injuries on her body but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as she used to live separately from husband-wife duo. 7. Learned counsel has next argued that the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings taken on 10.11.2024. The FIR has been instituted five days after the inquest proceedings as an afterthought. There was no allegation of demand of dowry at the time of inquest proceedings. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such viscera was preserved and later on, aluminum phosphide poison was found in the viscera. 8. Learned counsel has next stated that there being no specific demand of dowry mentioned in the FIR, as such ingredients of Section 80(2) BNSS are not fulfilled. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that he may be given some time to file counter affidavit annexing the details of the case and has also stated that the deceased has sustained two injuries on her body which have not been explained by the accused as she has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599, whereby it has been 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. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant lives separately in the house opposite to the house of husband of the informant. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled by the fact that initially the doctor opined the cause of death to be cardiac shock due to myocardial infarction, although viscera was preserved and aluminum phosphide was found in the viscera, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Smt. Gomti Devi, 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 the 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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 :- 31.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad