HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32234 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. 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.78 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 305(A) B.N.S., Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other accused persons are stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the husband of the informant and when the informant reached to intervene, she was also assaulted by them armed with lathi, danda and fawada, thereby the husband of the informant died at the spot on 16.05.2025 at about 5:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. The informant had expired four months after the incident, as such, it cannot be a case of committing her murder by the applicant or any other co-accused persons. The injuries sustained by the deceased person were not dangerous to life except one injury on cranium. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.5.2025 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) : Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dileep Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Badalu Giri @ Badde .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is a double murder case. The informant who instituted the FIR had also expired subsequently. The cause of death was head injury sustained by her. Even the FIR tantamounts to dying-declaration as the transcriber of FIR has expired subsequently. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that it was a double murder and the informant herself, who had instituted the FIR, succumbed to the injury sustained subsequently, 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 10, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32234 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad