Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103272 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9366 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheelendra Kumar,Vikrant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Barnahal, District- Mainpuri, 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 5.2.2018, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakh as dowry, of which Rs.50,000/- was given to them, thereby leading her to death on 2.8.2024. 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. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the injury sustained by the victim on her occipital region is a contusion which was accidentally sustained as she was being rushed to hospital and her clutcher caused the said injury as it hit the side of the car. The said injury was not found to be the cause of her death rather the cause of death could not be ascertained. Learned counsel has stated that in the supplementary statement the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased person has categorically stated that the cause of death might be syncope, as such, deceased died a natural death. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the viscera of the deceased was preserved and was sent for forensic analysis and the said report has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.3.2025 which indicates that no poison was found in the said viscera, as such, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant as a bona fide act had rushed his wife to PGI, Saifai. The said fact stands mentioned in the memo sent to the police station by the doctor concerned. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant has been explained vide supplementary affidavit dated 14.4.2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.8.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled with the fact that applicant had rushed his wife to the hospital where she was declared as brought dead, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Neeraj, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad