Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122556 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36172 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivam Nishad @ Dhngu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manjesh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Nandini Patel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manjesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Karaili, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 19.11.2021, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 22.01.2024 at about 10:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 15 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. The innocence of the applicant can be inferred from the fact that the applicant had broken open the door of the room and had retrieved the victim and had taken every step to save her life but he could not do so. There is no demand of dowry, as such, ingredient of Section 304B I.P.C. are not attracted. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and FIR is prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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 :- 25.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad