HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32865 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, applicant Kalicharan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 84 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Madrak, district Aligarh, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Ashok, who is brother of the deceased Neha, got an F.I.R. lodged on 05.05.2025 at 14:48 hours against Dilip, Kalicharan, Smt. Leelawati Devi, Harveer, Babu and Omkar, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased, respectively, stating inter alia that marriage of his sister Neha was solemnized on 05.05.2020 with Dilip and in the marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per his capacity but his sister's in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and there was additional demand of one motorcycle and Rs. 1 lac. On non- fulfillment of their demand, on 05.05.2025, his sister was done to death in her matrimonial home. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused persons, which is false and against the evidence on record. The information about the said incident was immediately given by the husband of the deceased to the complainant, on which they came to her matrimonial home and also gave information to the police. It is also submitted that the deceased was not done to death by the accused persons but she herself committed suicide. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rinky Pal, Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kalicharan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.08.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. 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 as per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and except the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. The information about the said unfortunate incident was immediately given by the husband of the deceased to the complainant, which shows the natural conduct of the in-laws of the deceased and the same is one of the relevant factor for considering bail. Here it is also relevant to mention that the parameters for considering the bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Sections 117 and 118 of 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 to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. Considering the 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 opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Kalicharan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties BAIL No. 32865 of 2025 2 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. (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 24, 2025 Shubham BAIL No. 32865 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad