1. Heard Mr. Kamal Kirshna, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Rahul Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Lohta, District-Varanasi, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.1199 of 2023 (State Vs. Sushil and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 304B and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Ughaiti, District-Budaun now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-1, Budaun.

4. At the very outset, the learned senior counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Arjun Yadav (father-in-law of deceased) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53265 of 2023 (Arjun Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 18.12.2023 is reproduced herein in -under:

"1. Heard Mr. Kamal Krishna, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prakhar Saran Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Arjun Yadav, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Lohta, District-Varanasi during the pendency of trial."

5. Record shows that marriage of Rahul Yadav (son of applicant-Arjun Yadav) was solemnized with Khusbu Yadav on 08.05.2021. However, just after expiry of a period of 2 years and 1 month from the date of marriage of the son of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 18.07.2023 in which, the daughter-in-law of applicant namely Khusbu Yadav died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The information regarding the aforesaid occurrence at the concerned Police Station was not given by applicant or any of his family members in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C. but by Shugwanti Devi, the mother of deceased.

6. Subsequently, in respect of the aforesaid incident, an FIR dated 18.07.2023 was lodged by first informant-Shugwanti Devi (mother of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 170 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Lohta, District-Varanasi. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons namely (1) Rahul Yadav (Husband), (2) Arjun Yadav (Father-in-law), (3) Raj Kumar Yadav (Devar), (4) Resham Yadav (Devrani), (5) Priyanka Yadav (Nanad) and (6) Munari Devi (Mother-in-law) of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.

7. After above-mentioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. The inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was categorized as suicidal and the cause of death of deceased was specified as hanging. Subsequent to above, post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, opined that cause of death of the deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. However, the viscera of deceased was preserved for chemical analysis. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased as is explicit from the recital contained at page 41 of the paper book:-

"Ligature mark all around neck is 29 cm x 2.3 cm high up as neck obliquely placed C gap of 3 cm over (Rt.) side of neck. Ligature mark 2 cm below (Rt.) Ear pinna and 3 cm below (Lt.) Ear Pinna. Ligature mark 2 cm below top of head. Ligature mark 5 cm above external notch. Ligature mark 136 cm above (Rt.) heel. Ligature mark on front of neck is 3 cm hence the total length is 159 cm skin under Ligature is parchmertised, tissue under earth is Ecchymosed."

8. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Most of the witnesses so examined have substantially supported the FIR. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that as per the material collected up to this stage complicity of applicant and other named accused Rahul is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 12.10.2023 whereby named accused Rahul (husband) and Arjun Yadav (father-in-law) have been charge sheeted under Sections 498- A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation in respect of another named accused is said to be pending.

9. Mr. Kamal Krishna, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is the father-in-law of deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The bona-fide of the applicant is further explicit from the fact that the except for the ligature mark, no other external ante- mortem injury was found by the Autopsy Surgeon on the body of deceased. As such, prima-facie, the death of deceased is a suicidal death. In view of above, the applicant is not liable to be awarded the maximum sentence under Section 304B IPC, in case, he is convicted. Attention of Court was then invited to the FIR giving rise to present criminal proceedings with reference to above, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that in the FIR giving rise to present criminal proceedings it has been alleged that additional demand of dowry by way of a two wheeler and one lac rupees was persistently raised. As the demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled, cruelty was committed upon the deceased. Ultimately, the daughter of first informant was put to death and thereafter her body was hanged. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant has invited the attention of Court to the statement of first informant which is on record at page 49 of the paper book. On the basis of above, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry are vague and bald allegations inasmuch as, the same are devoid of material particulars. At this stage, reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and on basis thereof, it is urged that since allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of cruelty upon deceased on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry having not been substantiated by material particulars either in the FIR nor in the statement of first informant, therefore, the said allegations are liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage. Moreover, applicant, who is the father-in-law of deceased cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The son of applicant/husband of deceased is already in jail. As such, the applicant is liable to be admitted to bail.

10. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 30.09.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 2 and 1/2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is the father-in-law of deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The deceased was a young lady aged about 24 years. The death of deceased is highly unnatural and has occurred in suspicious circumstance. The deceased committed suicide just after expiry of a period of 2 years and 1 month from the date of her marriage. The death of deceased is prima-facie a dowry death inasmuch as, the same has occurred even before expiry of a period of 7 years from the date of marriage and at her marital home. Applicant is the father-in-law of deceased and an inmate of the house where the occurrence has occurred. As such, he is under burden to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Section 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail with reference to the record at this stage.

12. Having heard, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that applicant is the father-in-law of deceased, the death of deceased is prima-facie a suicidal death, as is evident from the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, as such, in case of conviction, the applicant is not liable to be awarded the maximum sentence under Section 304-B IPC, the allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of cruelty upon deceased on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry are vague and bald allegations inasmuch as, the same have not been substantiated by material particulars either in the FIR nor in the statement of first informant, the husband of deceased i.e. son of applicant is already in jail, applicant being the father-in-law of deceased cannot be said to be the beneficiary of alleged demand of dowry, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant-Arjun Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) 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 313 CR.P.C. 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

15. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 18.12.2023"

5. Learned senior counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The bonafide of applicant is explicit from the fact that prima facie the death of the deceased is a suicidal death and not homicidal. To buttress his submission, he has invited the attention of Court to the post mortem report of the deceased, wherein, the Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased has opined that cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. No external ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. On the above premise, the learned senior counsel contends that in case applicant is convicted for an offence under Section 304B I.P.C., he is not liable to be awarded the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. It is next contended that the deceased was a short temper lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. In support of above, he has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra,  2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5).

6. According to the learned senior counsel for applicant, from perusal of the of the F.I.R., it is apparent that vague and bald allegations with regard to demand of additional dowry and commission of cruelty upon the deceased have been made. He has then taken the Court to the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is on record at page 51 of the paper book. In the light of above, he has then referred to the judgement of Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599. Reliance is placed upon paragraph 18 of the said report. Drawing a parallel in between the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he submits that allegations with regard to demand of additional dowry and commission of cruelty upon deceased was made in the F.I.R. but in the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no material particulars with regard to the same have come forward. As such, the said allegations are simply vague and bald allegation, which could not be established by first informant. On the above conspectus, the learned senior counsel contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

7. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 20.07.2023. As such, he has under-gone more than ten months of incarceration. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has merged on the basis of which it can be said that the custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The death of the deceased is highly unnatural inasmuch as the same has occurred just after expiry of two years and one month from the date of marriage of deceased. He further submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased and also an inmate of the house, in which, the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred. Consequently, the burden in upon the applicant to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden upto this stage. He therefore submits that no indulgence be granted by this court in favour of applicant. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned senior counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, and upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that though applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named as charge sheeted accused yet in spite of above prima facie applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the grounds that co-accused, Arjun Yadav (Father-in-law of deceased) has already been enlarged on bail, the learned A.G.A. for State could not distinguish the case of present applicant from that of co-accused Arjun Yadav so as to deny him bail, common allegations have been made against applicant and bailed out co-accused, Arjun Yadav, for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 18.12.2023 of co-accused Arjun Yadav, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, admittedly, in the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, therefore the death of the deceased is a suicidal death, as such applicant is not liable to be awarded the maximum sentence for an offence under Section 304B I.P.C., the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet inspite of above the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others (Supra) and Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal (supra), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

10. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.

11. Let the applicant-Rahul Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his 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) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(ii) 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) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

12. 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 of applicant and send him to prison