HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31003 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard Mr. Ramendra Pratap Singh assisted by Mr. Alok Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 351(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Eirwakatra, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of the deceased-Meera Devi got a first information report lodged on 19.02.2025 against Subhash alias Dharmendra (applicant), Rampal, Anil Kumar and Sarvesh Kumar who are husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle-in-law of the deceased stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter-Meera Devi was solemnized on 30.05.2021 with the applicant and in the marriage sufficient dowry was given as per his capacity, but later on her in-laws started demanding additional dowry. They were demanding a gold chain and a plot. F.I.R. further alleges that since his son-in- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Singh, Prabhat Kumar, Ramendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dharmendra Kumar Alias Subhash .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) law is working in Gurgaon, where he has illicit relation with some other woman, therefore, he was not living with his daughter. From the wedlock of applicant his daughter gave birth to a female child. On 11.02.2025, his daughter was beaten by her father-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle-in-law. On 12.02.2025, he received information that his daughter has been done to death. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in the F.I.R. also no allegation of beating the deceased has been attributed against the applicant. In fact deceased died by committing suicide. Information about the said unfortunate incident was given from the side of the applicant to the deceased's parents on which they came and thereafter inquest proceeding of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in their presence, but at that time also they did not make allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant. It is further pointed out that the inquest proceeding and post mortem of the deceased were conducted on 13.02.2025 but with regard to incident dated 12.02.2024, F.I.R. lodged on 19.02.2025 after seven days without any plausible explanation of delay. It is next pointed out that deceased died living behind her daughter who is present aged about two years. At present, she is living with grand-mother (aged about 80 years) of the applicant and is being taken care of by her. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025 having no criminal antecedent and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for BAIL No. 31003 of 2025 2 the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the deceased committed suicide leaving behind her a daughter, as noted above and no effort has been made from the side of the maternal grandparents to take care of two years old daughter of the deceased. This Court is of the view that the parents are responsible for taking care of the children. Without proper upbringing, their life may be ruined. Record of the case reveals that at this time, grand mother of the applicant is taking care of the child of the applicant, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court feels that the applicant should be enlarged on bail. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Dharmendra Kumar alias Subhash, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police BAIL No. 31003 of 2025 3 officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 15, 2025 Kashifa BAIL No. 31003 of 2025 4 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad