The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a prima facie case and the right to personal liberty, especially in cases involving allegations of dowry demand and cruelty.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

1. Case is called out.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surya Kant Singh, Advocate, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Raveesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. The present bail application is moved on behalf of the accused-applicant involved in Case Crime No. 358 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Cornailganj, District- Gonda.

4. The prosecution case as emerged from the First Information Report lodged on the complaint of one ‘Nandlal’, brother of the deceased, Sanju who died in the incident in question on 29.09.2021. The deceased wife of Vinod Kumar is stated to have married 12 years ago from the date of incident with the said Vinod Yadav s/o Ramchandra Yadav r/o of village Nakhara, Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Gonda. During the wedlock of Vinod Yadav and complainant’s sister Sanju two children were begotten. The complainant reported that on 29.9.2021 he came to know that her sister was not well and died in the course of treatment. He further revealed that father-in-law, Ramchandra Yadav, mother-in-law (the present accused-applicant) and brother of the father-in-law used to beat the deceased Sanju in connection with demand of the dowry and also on the date of incident she was beaten by them due to which she sustained injuries.

5. Complainant further stated that his brother-in-law Vinod Yadav brought his wife Sanju to the hospital for treatment who was badly injured and died there on the same day i.e., 29.9.2021. This complaint was made on 8.10.2021 almost after ten days. In support of the bail application the deponent on the affidavit has annexed the application dated 29.9.2021 addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station-Karnailganj, District-Gonda by aforesaid Vinod Yadav s/o of Ramchandra Yadav to the effect that his wife, with whom he was married 12 to 13 years ago, fell seriously ill in the morning on 29.9.2021. He brought her for treatment in the hospital where she died but since his in-laws were suspecting otherwise on receiving information of death he requested to post-mortem of the dead body.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant in the context of the above facts and circumstances submitted that present accused-applicant (mother-in-law of the deceased) has no connection with the deceased since last 12 to 13 years as Vinod Yadav along with the deceased wife was living separately with their two children in another house. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant having no concern with the affairs of Vinod Kumar and his deceased wife, does not know about the incident how and under what circumstances the wife of Vinod Kumar namely Sanju was died on 29.9.2021. It is further argued that the Vinod Yadav is the only person who was in immediate nexus with the deceased as her husband. After ten days from the incident so as to escape from the liability in collusion with his brother-in-law, he falsely implicated the present accused-applicant, her husband and brother of her husband as in-laws of the deceased.

7. Para 11 and 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application is relevant in this regard and are being reproduced hereunder:-

"11. That the accused/applicant with her husband and alogwith three sons out of which two are minor are living separately since 5 years from the deceased, in this regard the village pradhan has also given certificate on 19/11/2021 regarding family partition with the deceased family, and the said is also evident from the family register of the deceased as well as accused/applicant’s family. The copy of the certificate dated 19/11/2021 and family register of the deceased and the accused/applicant, aadhar are being annexed as Annexure No.7 and 8 to this affidavit.

13. That the marriage of the deceased was solemnized before 13 years with son of the accused/applicant and two children were also bor