Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132860 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42152 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Pramod Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sheetla Sahai Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, 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. 400 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) & 91 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Dhampur, District - Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of applicant's son was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites on 25.11.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry thereby leading her to death on 13.08.2024 at about 11:23 AM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the allegations are per se false. It is a clear cut case of electrocution as the deceased has suffered from electric shock which is evident from her postmortem report. The husband of the deceased person has reported the matter to the police as a bonafide act. The injury report indicates that the cause of death seems to be electric shock. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2024, having no criminal history to her credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are ten ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased person and the cause of death was not found to be electric shock rather it was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling as every endeavour has taken up by the applicant and her family members to put her to death. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that the bail application of father-in-law of the deceased person has already been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court. The offence is diabolic as the deceased who was pregnant, has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, she is not entitled for bail. 10. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 05.08.2025. As per the said report, three witnesses have been examined to date. 11. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that there were ten injuries sustained by the deceased person and her uterus was found gravid coupled by the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and also the fact that the trial is at a conclusive end as three witnesses have already been examined, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 14. 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. 15. 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:- 6.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad