Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111597 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40805 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dushyant Singh,G.A.,M.C. Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Uday Karan Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 111 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned Senior 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 cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and the door of the room of the deceased was broken open which is but evident from the inquest report and the statement of the witnesses, as such, it is a clear cut case of suicide by the deceased person. 5. It is next stated that brother of the deceased person was present at the time of inquest proceedings undertaken on 02.04.2024 at 7:00 a.m. itself and the FIR was instituted in the night at 8:30 p.m., as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that two witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood 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. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that there is demand of dowry and the FIR has been promptly instituted by the informant. All the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled. The Trial is moving on and two witnesses of fact have already been examined. It is next stated that the applicant had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and two witnesses have deposed against the applicant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that FIR is prompt and two witnesses have already been examined, 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