Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13404 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1793 of 2025 Applicant :- Bina Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Sahab Yadav,Shiv Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sajiya Parveen Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sajiya Parveenas well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2024, U/S 80(2), 85, 115(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Wavecity, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 16.2.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of a Fortuner car as dowry. 5. A Panchayat was held between the two parties on 25.8.2024 in the presence of several relatives and the informant is stated to have given Rs. 3 lakhs to the in-laws, whereby the victim was handed over to the applicant and other co-accused persons. The victim is stated to have expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant on 5.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 6. The applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize her. 7. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. The cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 9. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 10. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the CCTV camera of the house of the applicant was made dysfunctional during the stay of the deceased in the bathroom and it was made functional after a lapse of about 45 minutes. It was a deliberate attempt of the applicant to conceal the modus operandi of the commissioning of the offence, as such, she is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 12. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 13. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 14. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the rival submissions and considering the fact that there being delay in institution of the FIR, the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and there being no proof of strangulation or throttling, 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. 15. The bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Bina Yadav who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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 :- 27.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad