Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116045 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10224 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Chaudhary Alias Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurang Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Gaurang Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhirendra Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 770 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 & 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District - Jalaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 9 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has a criminal history of one case, which has been explained in supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within 9 hours of the incident. The deceased has expired after a lapse of two years of her marriage only and that too within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within 9 hours of the incident and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 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. Order Date:- 17.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad