HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25390 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamalendra Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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.197 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person. FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. Applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Even charge has not been framed, as such, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. It is further argued that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamalendra Kumar Maurya Urmila Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) per the status report dated 20.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, charge has not been framed. 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 fact that there are only general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons coupled with the fact that charge has not been framed in the case, 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-Urmila Devi, 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. September 1, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 25390 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad