Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110651 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6097 of 2025 Applicant :- Vivek Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Deoband, District - Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant is the panch witness no. 2 in the said inquest proceedings and at that time, he has not whispered a single word against the applicant, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant and another witness have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in court and have not supported the prosecution story, as such, there is no possibility of conviction in the present case under the circumstances. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.05.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. 7. 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 settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and also the fact that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution story coupled by the fact that the informant is one of the panch witness in the inquest proceedings and he has not whispered a single word against the applicant at that time, 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. 8. Let the applicant- Vivek, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad