HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21574 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.725 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed cold blooded murder of his daughter-in-law on 2.12.2024 at about 01:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Prior to it, the information at the police station was received and the inquest proceedings were conducted. The information at the police station was received at 13:34 p.m. on 2.12.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequently, two witnesses have been roped in who are the two daughters of the deceased person and they have stated that they reached the house from school at about 02:00 p.m. and found the applicant quarreling with deceased person, thereupon applicant is stated to have committed the said Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajkumar Chauhan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) murder by shooting her. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the said discrepancy of time of offence creates a hole in the prosecution story. There was no dispute between the parties as the marriage of the deceased person was solemnized with the son of the applicant about 12 years before the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 5.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that four brothers used to live in the very same premise and the applicant was nominated in the said FIR. The onus lies on the applicant to explain as to how the deceased had expired in his house under unnatural circumstances. The said discrepancy in the statements of witnesses regarding time of offence is but obvious as they are minor children of the deceased person. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant that too by gunshot injury and the applicant being an ex-army man had licensed weapon with him, 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 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) October 14, 2025/ Vikas Verma BAIL No. 21574 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad