The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, as well as the circumstances of the case, in granting bail. It also emphasized the need to impose conditions for bail to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

JUDGMENT :

1. Applicant -Devki Nandan Pal has approached this Court for bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Barua Sagar, District- Jhansi.

2. Content of First Information Report of present case discloses that marriage of daughter of informant was solemnized with son of applicant, however her husband and in laws were not happy with dowry and committed cruelty with her in regard to demand of a four wheeler and within a period of one and half year, she died under other than normal circumstances. According to postmortem report, immediate cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning and postmortem injuries were also seen. (post mortem animal bite present on left side on lower lip)

3. Sri Karan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that applicant is related to deceased as her father in law. Allegations of committing cruelty in regard to demand of dowry are not supported by any cogent evidence and it appears to be a vague allegation. The deceased went to Dumririver for taking bath and for washing cloth and it appears that an accident took place and she fell into river. Mother in law of deceased has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. Per Contra, Sri Markandey Singh, learned Brief Holder for State and Sri Ram Milan Singh, learned counsel for informant have submitted that deceased died within a short period of one and half years of marriage under other than normal circumstances. The applicant and other family member ran away and none of them was present during inquest proceedings. There are consistent evidence against applicant also in regard to demand of dowry. However, it is not disputed that similarly situated co-accused (mother in law) has already been granted bail. They have also submitted that order granting bail to co-accused by coordinate Bench was not accompanied with reasons as required in terms of judgments of Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022) 3 SCC 501 and Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497.

5. LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY

(A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.

(B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.

(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail.

(D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors.

(See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (