HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30704 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Omkar Nath, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.184 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the son of the applicants was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about six years before the incident. The informant is stated to have given a buffalo worth Rs.70,000/- to the applicants in lieu of the motorcycle which he could not give in dowry, but the applicants and other co-accused persons persisted with the said demand of extra dowry and led the deceased to death on 06.07.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that applicant no.1 is the father-in-law and applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The FIR is delayed by more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Thakur Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Moolchandra And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The allegations that the applicant did not inform the informant about the incident are false as applicant no.2 had informed the police within time and after the inquest and post-mortem report, the instant FIR has been instituted belatedly. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 10.07.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant and his family members were not informed by the applicants or any of their family members about the incident and they concealed the said fact. The information reached the informant after the cremation of the deceased person, as such, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 8. In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N. AIR 1973 SC 501, the Supreme Court has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. 9. 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made BAIL No. 30704 of 2025 2 by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicants- Moolchandra and Smt. Sheetali Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 9, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 30704 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad