Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122589 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36972 of 2024 Applicant :- Sonu Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Narain Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant today are taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. 3. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kapoorpur, District Hapur, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 30.04.2021. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.five lacs as dowry and thereby led her to death on 13.06.2024 at about 3 a.m. 6. It is also alleged in the FIR that the deceased had called her parents in the night of 12.06.2024 at about 10 p.m. and had stated that she was being subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. 7. 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 about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. Learned counsel has further stated that it was the applicant, who had informed the police which stands fortified from the inquest report itself, whereby it is mentioned that the applicant had informed the police about the suicide committed by his wife. The informant and other family members were present at the time of inquest proceedings undertaken well before the institution of FIR and they have not whispered a single word about the demand of dowry at that stage. 9. Learned counsel has next argued that the victim had established illicit relationship elsewhere and she did not like the applicant, as such out of the said remorse she has committed suicide. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the affidavit filed by several villagers to the said effect, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 10. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 11. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail and have stated that the C.D.R. of the mobile number of the applicant i.e. 8126348071 indicates that the deceased had called her parents in the night at about 9:54:29 p.m. and 9:56:07 p.m. on 12.06.2024 itself. The said C.D.R. of the mobile number of the applicant have been filed as CA-1 to the affidavit. 12. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that it is mentioned in the FIR itself that the deceased had called the informant at about 10 p.m. on 12.06.2024 and the said fact stands established with the C.D.R. as the deceased had used the mobile phone of her husband itself. It is next stated that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the FIR is prompt. 13. Even perusal of Section 174 Cr.P.C. indicates that it is not necessary to mention the details of the crime. The only requisite of Section 174 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the death is accidental, homicidal or suicidal. 14. 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 and the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and the FIR is prompt coupled by the C.D.R. filed by learned counsel for the informant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 15. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 16. 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. 17. 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 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad