Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106765 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23367 of 2025 Applicant :- Kuldeep Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shad Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramesh Chandra Pal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, 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.145 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115, 351(2), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Derapur, District Kanpur Dehat 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 17.11.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.1 lakh as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 31.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He lives far away from the place of occurrence and the deceased wanted the applicant to take her alongwith him, but he did not have the means to maintain her. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased was a short-tempered lady, as such, has committed suicide. There is a child born out of the wedlock who is being taken care off by the parents of the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 02.09.2024 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 earlier on also, there was a dispute between the parties regarding demand of dowry about 3-4 months before the incident and the matter was settled and the deceased was sent to the house of her in-laws. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and there was a dispute regarding dowry earlier on also, 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 :- 8.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad