Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111499 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38599 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramesh Banwasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Roshani Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Roshani Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.116 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 16.05.2014. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of a motorcycle and money as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 03.06.2019 at about 1:30 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The autopsy report does not indicate any ante- mortem injuries on the body of the deceased person and it has been observed that liver and spleen of the deceased were found ruptured, which may be caused by a fall or any other reason whatsoever, but it is not a case of having caused any traumatic injuries to the deceased person by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR does not mention as to what was demanded in dowry. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 6.9.2019 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. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that FIR itself mentions the demand of dowry to be motorcycle and money. In addition to it, the inquest report also mentions that there were scratch marks on the abdomen of the deceased person which match with the lacerated spleen and liver of the deceased person, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts that the FIR has been instituted within reasonable time and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled with the fact that some scratches were observed at the time of inquest proceedings of the deceased, 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 as early as possible 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 :- 11.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad