Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122248 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25481 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, 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.103 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the father of the deceased person and other family members have given an application at the police station stating that the deceased had committed suicide and they do not want any action in this case, but the FIR has been instituted as an afterthought. Even the family members of the deceased person were present at the time of inquest proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, including the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.05.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599has 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. 9. 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 family members of the deceased 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. 10. Let the applicant- Rajesh, 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 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 25.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad