HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30718 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. By means of this bail application, applicant Sandeep, who is involved in Case Crime No. 60 of 2025 (Case No. 38614 of 2025), under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Mundha Pandey, district Moradabad seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the deceased Rama, got an F.I.R. lodged on 24.02.2025 against the applicant Sandeep and his family members stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter Rama was solemnized on 05.06.2020 with Sandeep but after marriage, her in-laws used to beat his daughter for bringing less dowry and there was consistent demand of a motorcycle and money. On 22.02.2025 at about 06:00 P.M., he received information that his daughter has committed suicide. In the F.I.R., allegation has been levelled that his daughter has been done to death by her in-laws. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. 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. Referring the statement of Rinku, it is pointed out that in fact, the deceased Rama was having illicit relation with Farman and was inclined to live with him, which was being objected by her family members. Since the reputation of family members of Rama was being lowered down in the society, therefore, Pawan Kumar, who is brother of the deceased, forcibly took her sister to her matrimonial home, therefore, she was annoyed and committed suicide in her matrimonial home, when her brother was sitting for lunch in the house of the applicant. It is also submitted that as per the statement of Pawan Kumar also, the applicant was not present at the time of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) said unfortunate incident of committing suicide by the deceased. Lastly, it is submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and other co-accused persons levelled by father of the deceased is wholly false and against the evidence on record. The F.I.R. version is contrary to the statement of Pawan Kumar (brother of the deceased). Hence, the applicant, who does not have any criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 02.04.2025, may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does 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 was having illicit relation with Farman and the Investigating Officer has collected the material also in this regard, which is corroborated from the statement of Rinku. As per statement of Pawan Kumar (brother of the deceased) also, it is not a case of committing murder of the deceased Rama by her in-laws but she herself committed suicide. As per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of hanging. In view of the provisions under Section 117 and 118 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. 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 learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Sandeep 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, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. BAIL No. 30718 of 2025 2 (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. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 17, 2025 Shubham BAIL No. 30718 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad