HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31406 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 645 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 598 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 34, 323 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Jagdishpura, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. There are several discrepancies in the statement of P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the co-accused persons, Smt. Shakuntala and Raju, have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench as well as by this Court vide orders dated 5.7.2024 and 14.7.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. Nos. 15370 of 2024 and 26309 of 2024, respectively. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 6. Learned counsel has further contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bharat Bhushan Paul, G.A., Saurabh Paul Anurag .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2023, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem strangulation. The deceased has expired within six months of her marriage and that too within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation coupled by the fact that the deceased has expired within six months of her marriage and that too within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application 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. October 13, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 31406 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad