HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29057 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceeding and the said proceedings were started at 8 p.m. and was concluded at 11:30 p.m., while the FIR was instituted at 10:10 P.M. as such, there is no possibility of the informant being present at two places at one time as the FIR and inquest proceedings are ante-timed. 6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Pundir, Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra, G.A. Jagpal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) opposed the bail application. 8. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599, the Supreme Court has categorically stated 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. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant lives separately in the house opposite to the house of husband of the informant. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons coupled by the the FIR and inquest proceedings being ante-timed and the applicant being father-in-law of the deceased person, 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- Jagpal, 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 the 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 1, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 29057 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad