Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107075 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16472 of 2023 Applicant :- Nasir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Srivastava,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,Rayoof Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0102 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sonha, District Basti, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the deceased person, who happens to be the husband of the co-accused was sleeping in his house along with her and their children on 25.05.2022 and the co-accused informed her family members that her husband had quarreled with her during night and left the house for Delhi. The informant kept on searching for his brother. Subsequently, daughter of the deceased person Nandani aged about 8 years informed the informant that the applicant was called by the wife of the deceased to her house in the night on 25.05.2022 and got her husband slaughtered by knife at about 11:30 p.m and applicant is stated to have put the said dead body in a sack and taken it away and disposed it off. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion only. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. It is next stated that the FIR is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.06.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the dead body of the deceased have been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant only and there is recovery of a knife also at his pointing out, as such he is the main accused who had slaughtered the deceased in a cold blood in his house, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant had slaughtered the deceased person in his house and there is recovery of the dead body at his pointing out coupled by the said weapon of offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. 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 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. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad