HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30997 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. By means of this bail application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Bhognipur, district Kanpur Dehat, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Anoop Kumar Singh, who is brother of the deceased Shalini Devi, got a first information report lodged on 12.04.2025 against Shivam Yadav, Ramkesh Yadav, Neelam Yadav, Shailendra and Divyanshi, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased respectively stating inter alia that the marriage of his sister was solemnized on 29.01.2020 with Shivam Yadav and in the marriage sufficient dowry was given, but after the marriage, the accused persons started demanding Wagon-R car and a sum of Rs. 500,000/- for business. On non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, his sister was being harassed in her matrimonial home though she was having a pregnancy of five months. On 10.04.2025 at about 3.20 PM, his sister made a phone call at mobile No. 6387357683 and told that her in-laws are beating her for non-fulfillment of their demand of additional dowry. On the said informationwhen he went to her matrimonial house, he found his sister dead. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Narayan Singh, Ram Bahadur, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Neelam Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations of demand of dowry as alleged in the FIR is false and against the evidence on record. It is further argued that as per case of the complainant himself when he reached at the house of the applicant, all the family members of the applicant were present there. Though the allegation has been leveled that deceased was done to death in her matrimonial home, but the said allegation is against the evidence on record as the deceased died by committing suicide. No specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the alleged crime, hence the applicant who is languishing in jail since 28.04.2025 having no criminal history may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Due to heavy docket, the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of the first information report, but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that in the FIR, it is mentioned that on 10.04.2025, deceased, soon before her death, made a phone call at about 3:20 PM at mobile No. 6387357683 to the complainant, therefore this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to seek instructions as to whether the investigating officer collected any material with regard to the aforesaid content of the FIR. Today, on the matter being taken up, learned Additional Government Advocate, upon instructions, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.09.2025, submits that the investigating officer has not collected any CDR with regard to making alleged phone call on 10.04.2025 by the deceased to the complainant. I also find that as per post-mortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging and except ligature mark, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, severity of BAIL No. 30997 of 2025 2 punishment, complicity of the applicant and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as noted above, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands allowed. Let the applicant Neelam Devi, 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 involve in any criminal activity. In case of breach of above conditions by the applicant, it will be open for the prosecution to move bail cancellation application before the Court concerned. September 25, 2025 Ishrat BAIL No. 30997 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad