Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60342 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4306 of 2025 Applicant :- Atul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Babit Kumar,Yadvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Yaduvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation that due to demand of dowry, he committed the murder of his wife along with his family members, he has been made accused in the present matter. 4. He further submits, however, in the FIR, informant made allegation against the applicant but when he was examined by the trial court then during trial he did not support the prosecution case. 5. He further submits, it is a case in which total five persons were made accused in the FIR but during investigation involvement of the three accused persons were found false, therefore, it reflects, FIR is based on false facts. 6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.10.2023 i.e. for last one and half years. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to throttling in her matrimonial home and applicant failed to explain her homicidal death, therefore, he should not be released on bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. Applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he along with his family members due to demand of dowry committed the murder of his wife and post mortem report also suggests that she died due to throttling, therefore, prima facie it appears to be a case of homicidal death. Applicant failed to explain the death of his wife who was allegedly murdered in his home i.e. matrimonial home of the deceased. 10. Further, however, it reflects, during trial in his cross examination informant did not support the prosecution case but as, he was not an eye witness and deceased died due to throttling and applicant is husband of the deceased, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the applicant on the ground that informant did not support the prosecution case during trial. 11. Further, however applicant is in jail since 21.10.2023 but considering the nature of allegation leveled against the applicant and cause of death of the deceased i.e. wife of the applicant, in view of this Court merely on the basis of his incarceration of about one and half years, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 14. 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 :- 22.4.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad