Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118978 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3741 of 2025 Applicant :- Meera Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Monika Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Monika Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjiv Kumar Khare, 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. 34 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Balrai, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co- accused Ravi @ Prem, who has been enlarged on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2025. It is further stated that the applicant lives separately to the husband- wife duo. The applicant is the sister-in-law of the deceased person and was mediator to the said marriage. The dying declaration indicates that even the husband of the deceased was involved in the said offence and she has allayed the allegations against other family members also, as such she is entitled for bail. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that statement of witness Aniket also indicates that it was the family members of the husband of the deceased person, who had committed the said offence. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the dying declaration categorically indicates that the applicant had set her afire and she has not allayed the allegations of setting her ablaze to any other person. Even the order of co-accused Ravi @ Prem indicates the same, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail as she is the main accused person. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that there is a dying declaration indicating the applicant to be the main accused person, 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, 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. 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 :- 22.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad