Kallu vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11847 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kallu vs State Of U.P. on 29 October, 2025

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189367
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37734 of 2025   
 
   Kallu    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Ramesh Kumar Ojha, Surendra Narayan Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Richa Dwivedi, Srawan Kumar Swarnkar   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 66
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.     

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Kallu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 120 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80, 115(2), 91, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mandi, District Saharanpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 22.03.2025 by Smt. Jamila against the applicant and 05 other persons on the basis of an application dated 05.02.2025 moved under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter Shabana was solemnized with Nadeem around two years back. The accused persons were demanding a motorcycle and Rs. Two lakh cash as dowry from her and used to torture and assault her. Saif Ali the devar and Kallu the father-in-law of the deceased had an evil eye on her and had misbehaved with her on 03.04.2024 regarding which a first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 73 / 2024. Since then the accused persons were having enmity with her. They used to torture and assault her. On 03.09.2024 when her daughter was carrying pregnancy and was unable to do work she was assaulted by the accused persons and on receiving information they reached there and took her to a doctor wherein subsequently on 10.09.2024 her daughter along with the child died. The accused persons due to non-fulfillment of dowry have murdered her daughter. She gave an information to the police on 27.01.2025 but no action was taken. Subsequently an application by registered post was sent on 31.01.2025 to the S.S.P., Sahranpur on which also no action was taken and then on 05.02.2025 the present application was moved under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset submits that co-accused Smt. Shahjad the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30672 of 2025 (Smt. Shahjad Vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record, the same reads as under:-

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85, 115(2), 91, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mandi, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about six months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been moved on 05.02.2025, which itself is delayed by about five months. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained. The deceased had expired due to bleeding as a result of her pregnancy. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.07.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Smt. Shahjad, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."

6. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay in as much as application under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. has been moved on 05.02.2025 which is after about five months of the incident. It is further submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and all the accused persons. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.07.2025.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that previously the applicant and co-accused Saif Ali the devar of the deceased were also made as accused in a case regarding outraging the modesty of the deceased.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Co-accused Smt. Shahjad the mother-in-law of the deceased of the deceased has been granted bail. The application under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. has been moved after about five months of the incident without any plausible explanation.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Kallu, 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) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

October 29, 2025

AS Rathore