Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111570 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36611 of 2024 Applicant :- Veeru Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Srinagar, District Mahoba, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, marriage of daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu rites about two years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of money as dowry and thereby led her to death on 13.02.2023 at about 2:30 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. It is next stated that all the witnesses of fact have been examined and there is no possibility of the applicant tempering with the evidence and he is not a flight risk, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the trial is at its conclusive end as already all witnesses of fact have been examined. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that the FIR is prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad