Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110453 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6567 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Giri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ayush Mishra,Prabha Shanker Mishra,Satya Prakash Rai,Yogesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 501 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Ghosi, District-Mau, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant person as per Hindu Rites on 25.11.2022. There are allegations that applicant used to tease and torment her regularly for demand of dowry and thereby leading the deceased to death on 01.11.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 14 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It was observed by the informant that there were injuries on the eyes and other parts of the deceased person and her dead body was found in a car outside the hospital. The cause of death is found to be Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there were no injuries observed on the dead body of the deceased person as post- mortem report indicates only one legature mark on the neck of the deceased person. Learned counsel has further stated that the inquest proceedings of the deceased person indicated certain injuries but it did not indicate any injury in the eyes rather it is stated that both the eyes had blood in them. Learned counsel has further stated that there were several messages exchanged between the deceased and her mother whereby the mother has scolded her daughter not to call her. There is no earlier complaint or demand of dowry. Learned counsel has further argued that FIR does not indicate as to what was demanded in dowry, as such, ingredient of Sections 80(2) of BNS are not fulfilled. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.11.2024 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 counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that inquest proceedings categorically indicated several injuries on the body of the deceased. The blood was oozing out of the nose and there was blackness observed on the right elbow of the deceased person and blood was clotted in the eyes of the deceased person, as such, post-mortem report has been prepared in collusion with the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR, there is no mention in the FIR as to what was demanded in dowry and contradiction in the injuries sustained by the victim in the FIR and the post-mortem report and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant-Shivam Giri, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad