JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Hom Narayan Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Kiran Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The applicant Shakuntala Devi Alias Madhuri has moved the present bail application seeking bail in case crime No. 360 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first information report has been lodged with delay of about five days without giving any plausible explanation. The applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of applicant’s son and deceased was solemnized on 25.02.2020. The relation between the deceased and the son of the applicant was cordial except some minor dispute which always happens between husband and wife. As per the version of FIR general allegation regarding additional demand of dowry in the form of Rs. two lacs and a Maruti Car and causing cruelty to the deceased was made against the applicant and her other family members named in the FIR and no specific allegation for the same was made against the applicant or her family members named in the FIR. Prior to the alleged incident no any complaint was ever made either by the deceased or her parents to any of the authorities regarding additional demand of dowry or causing cruelty to the deceased by the applicant or her family members named in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant was living separately from the deceased and his son, as is evident from the Parivar Register, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this bail application. The applicant could never be the beneficiary of the additional demand of dowry in the form of one Maturti Car and Rs. 2 lac cash. The deceased was a short tempered lady and was annoyed with her husband as her husband was spending money in the medical treatment of his father and was not fulfilling her lavish wishes, that is why the deceased was living under stress and mental depression and on the date of incident the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with sari from the hook installed in ceiling of the room. The husband of the deceased informed the son of the complainant namely Satyam on phone about the alleged incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that at the time of inquest of the corpse of the deceased, the family members of the complainant and the applicant were present. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted. The cause of death of deceased was Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging only with one ligature mark and except one ligature mark there is no any other injury found on the body of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. In support of his argument, learned counsel of the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence wherein definition of hanging has been described and as per the post mortem report of the deceased it is almost identical to the definition of hanging given in Modi’s Jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that since as per the Modi’s jurisprudence and as per the post mortem report of the deceased they both are identical, it it is a case of hanging and not of murder or strangulation. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and, therefore, giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and is in jail since 14.09.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 9. Learned A.G.A.-1 while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage and she was being subjected to cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 10. 9. Learned A.G.A.-1 while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage and she was being subjected to cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 10. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that the applicant is mother in law of the deceased and was living separately from the deceased and his son as is evident from the Parivar Registrar (Annexure No.2) and she cannot be the beneficiary of the additional demand of dowry in the form of Maruti Car and cash amount of Rs 2,00,000/-; there is general allegation made in the FIR against the applicant and her other family members named in the FIR regarding additional demand of dowry and causing cruelty to the deceased and no specific allegation for the same has been made to the applicant; nor prior to the alleged incident any complainant regarding demand of dowry or causing cruelty to the deceased was made either by the deceased or her family members to any of the authorities against the applicant or her family members; and as per the post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging with one ligature mark; thus there appears to be force in the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the definition given in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence regrading hanging and the injury mark given by the doctor in the post mortem report it appears to be a case of hanging and not of strangulation or murder and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 11. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 11. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant, Shakuntala Devi Alias Madhuri involved in Case Crime No. 360 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. (3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. (7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. (8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 13. (8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 13. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 14. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.