Kamlesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144683

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27115 of 2025

Applicant :- Kamlesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Eka, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

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. The FIR is delayed by about four months and eleven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 22.06.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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 applicants are the father-in-law and mother-inlaw 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 .

¶15

Let the applicants- Kamlesh and Smt. Triveni , 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.

¶16

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases