HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43592 of 2024 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.83 of 2024, under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have slaughtered the sister of the informant in the night of 21.04.2024 at about 11:30 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about twelve hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There was no reason for the applicant to commit the said offence, as such, he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Even the statement of the said person has not been recorded to whom the applicant proposed to marry his daughter, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is in jail since 25.04.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Saurabh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sukhveer .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the statement of eight years old daughter of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer and she has categorically nominated the applicant to have committed the said murder. 8. Learned State Law Officer has further stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is ocular evidence against the applicant and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the very same house where the applicant and the deceased used to live, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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. October 27, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 43592 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad