Family members cannot be mechanically implicated in dowry death allegations without sufficient evidence.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

2 01-12-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and

61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are women and the informant alleges that victim was married to Vinod on 5-6-2025, after marriage the accused persons started torturing her for non-fulfillment of the demand of motorcycle, further on 4-7-2025 the informant received an information that victim died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case, being brothers and sister-in-law (gotni) of the deceased. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 103(1) and 238 BNS , which amply demonstrates that it was not a case of dowry death rather the victim was murdered, but then it is submitted that since petitioners are related to Vinod, as such they also came to be implicated in a mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegations. It is submitted that the dead body was sent for postmortem. It is also submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence, in that event efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal evidence, but then the same was not done. It is next submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and the wife and the occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegations. It is further submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Fakuli P.S. Case No. 38 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioners, despite giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station through the learned Trial Court.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)