Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111500 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36488 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Shabiban @ Shabina Begum Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratap Narain Gangwar,Sunil Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 877 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.7.2024 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 15448 of 2024. 4. It has been informed that since the dismissal order in first bail application is not on merit, the instant bail application could be heard by regular bench as per the roster. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The son of the applicant had taken every endeavor to save the life of the deceased person as he rushed her to the hospital but unfortunately, the victim succumbed to burn injuries. The dying declaration of the deceased person indicates that the applicant was standing there and no overt act has been assigned to her. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a dying declaration of the deceased person whereby she has levelled particular allegations of setting her on fire by her husband in the presence of the applicant, as such, she is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and also considering the fact that there is a dying declaration of the deceased person whereby the applicant was present when she was set afire, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date:- 11.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad