Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30229 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1798 of 2025 Applicant :- Bablu Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Prakash Singh,Mohd. Rais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records. 2. This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11532 of 2022 was rejected by this court by means of an order dated 11.10.2022. 3. The second bail application has been moved on the ground that the applicant's younger brother Alkesh has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this court by means of an order dated 29.01.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7743 of 2024 and the applicant's mother Smt. Shanti Devi has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this court by means of an order dated 20.02.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14813 of 2023. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh: Criminal Appeal No.738 of 2025, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant for the offences under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, Sections 8(2), (3) and (5) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 120-B, 201 and 149 read with 34 I.P.C. inter alia on the ground that following articles ordinarily used in nextlite activities were recovered from the applicant's vehicle namely "(i) 95 pair of shoes, (ii) green black printed cloth, (iii) two bundles of electric wire each 100 meter, (iv) LED lens and (v) walki talki and other articles". The appellant was taken into custody on 24.03.2020, 42 witnesses have been examined and 100 witnesses were to be examined. The panch witness of recovery had turned hostile. The appellant had already spent five years in jail. 5. In the present case, the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. is all the accused persons used to harass the informant's daughter for demanding dowry and they poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze. The victim died eight days after the incident after giving her dying declaration, wherein she stated that her husband consumes liquor and hands over all his earnings to his mother. He threatens to leave her. Her mother in law also asked her husband to leave her. Her husband's younger brother also abused her. At about 2.30, her husband (the applicant), brother in law (co-accused Alkesh) and mother in law (co-accused Smt. Shanti Devi) poured kerosene upon her body and set her ablaze. 6. During investigation, the Investigating Office recorded statement of 8 years old daughter of the deceased, who stated that her father did not pay any money to her mother and when her mother demanded money for her fees and domestic expenses, her father used to quarrel with her and abuse her mother. On 10.03.2020 it was holi festival, she heard some noise and when she came down from the terrace she saw her grand mother and her bua pouring kerosene on her mother and her father (the applicant) set her mother ablaze. 7. The learned trial court has examined 9 prosecution witnesses and all of them supported the prosecution case. The victim died due to septicemia as a result of burn injuries. 8. The co-accused persons Alkesh and Smt. Shanti Devi have been ordered to be released on bail merely on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial, without adverting to the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 9. Although, the delay is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while deciding a bail application, the bail application cannot be allowed on the sole ground of delay, when the allegations levelled are heinous in nature and there is ample evidence to support the allegation. When the deceased's 8 years old daughter was an eye witness of the incident and she categorically stated that her grand mother and bua had poured kerosene on the body of her mother and her father (the applicant) had set her ablaze, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts to not warrant exercise of discretion of this court by enlarging the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is accordingly rejected. 11. As the applicant is languishing in jail and 9 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, it is provided that the trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously and shall try to conclude the same as early as possible by not granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and fixing dates at short intervals. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench