Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139284 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27969 of 2025 Applicant :- Ishaq Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Bhanu Shukla,Shubhangini Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shubhangini Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Irfan Alim Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0209 of 2025, under Sections 108 B.N.S, Police Station Ankur Vihar, District Gramin (Commissionerate Ghaziabad), during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Muslim rites in the year 2017. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry and are stated to have assaulted several times. There are allegations that on 19.05.2025 also, they had assaulted her and the deceased had made a call to her brother and as such, caused her death on 20.05.2025 at about 5:20 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 20 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is the father- in-law of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. 7. It is further stated that initially, the FIR was instituted for murder but subsequently the case has been transformed to that of abetment to suicide and the case being of more than seven years after marriage, no case of dowry death is made out. Learned counsel has next submitted that ingredients of Section 108 of BNS are not fulfilled as there is no overt act assigned to the applicant for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.05.2025 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 counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased had called her brother one day before the incident regarding being subjected to cruelty and being assaulted by the applicant but he could not bring forward any evidence of any other injury except the ligature mark on the neck. 10. Learned counsel for the informant has next stated that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such he is not entitled for bail. 11. 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. 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 the person 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. 13. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. It is a 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 15. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". 16. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted. 17. 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 the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person and there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons coupled by the fact that the case is of abetment to suicide and not dowry death and taking into account the delay in institution of the FIR, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant- Ishaq Mohammad, 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. 19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 20. 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 :- 14.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad