Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122384 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25483 of 2025 Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Katiyar,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, 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.245 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 05.12.2023 and several pleasantries were exchanged in the said ceremony. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of extra dowry, thereby led her to death on 14.08.2024 at about 9:35 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The most potent question is that the FIR herein is ante-time as the informant is panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings, which has been filed as annexure no.2 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the inquest proceedings were started on 14.08.2024 at 1:00 p.m. and were culminated at 5:20 p.m. It is interesting to note that the FIR has been instituted at 5:14 p.m. the same evening and the informant cannot be present at both the places as the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is about twelve kilometers as mentioned in FIR, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the informant has not whispered a single word about demand of dowry at the stage of inquest proceedings. The FIR does not mention about the fact as to what was demanded in dowry, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the inconsistency in the inquest proceedings to the FIR and also there being no particular demand of dowry as per FIR, 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. 11. Let the applicant- Praveen Kumar, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad