HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34881 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 103(1), 61(2)A of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Sarai Akil, District - Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of informant's sister was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu Rites on 10.02.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry and put her to death on 28.03.2025 at about 11:00 AM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the deceased has committed suicide. The father of the applicant and his cousin have been enlarged on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mulayam Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) bail by this Court by two different orders, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 7. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The onus lies on the applicant to explain the circumstances in which she has expired within the precincts of his house. The applicant being her husband is the main accused person, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the cause of her death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 12. 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. October 10, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 34881 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad