Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146071 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10478 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Datta,Shive Datta Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Pathak,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shiv Datta Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer 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.109 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 02.03.2019 and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of a bullet motorcycle as dowry, thereby led her to death on 12.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The deceased had committed suicide. Out of wedlock, a baby boy was born and the family members of the applicant are taking care of the said son. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 13.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and even the son of the applicant has given the statement that the applicant used to beat the deceased up and demanded dowry, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 05.08.2025, one witness has been examined. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and there was demand of dowry, 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 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. 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 :- 23.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad