Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138328 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7141 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pathak,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Rajrshi Gupta,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bhatni, District-Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 11.02.2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of Bullet Motorcycle as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 13.06.2022. There are also allegations that the applicant had an illicit relationship with his Aunt. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the prosecution is not sure about the motive of incident. At one hand, it is alleged that the applicant demanded a Bullet Motorcycle as dowry, on the other hand, it is stated that applicant had an illicit relationship with his Aunt which tantamount to adultery which does not come within the purview of the dowry death. The cause of death is Ashphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, as such, deceased has committed suicide. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that to the maximum, a case may be drawn under Section 306 I.P.C. only. It is also argued that three witnesses of facts have already been examined and the other witnesses are just formal witnesses and there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.06.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and FIR has been instituted within time. Cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is further argued that the said offence has been committed within a period of four months of marriage and the deceased was pregnant at the time of death, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 30.07.2025 received from the trial court concerned, three witnesses have already been examined. Status report also indicates that delay in trial can be attributed to the non-cooperative attitude of the counsel for the applicant. 10. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. 11. The Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, 2025 INSC 974, has categorically reinforced that the bail orders engrave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that three witnesses of fact have already been examined, the deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the counsel for the applicant not co-operating in the trial, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 14. 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. 15. 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 :- 13.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad