Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110885 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 295 of 2025 Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Yadav,Pradeep Kumar Yadav,Prem Sagar Verma,Rahul Kumar,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Tiwari,G.A.,Ramesh Chandra Dubey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu Rites on 14.11.2019 in a social marriage convention, in which several pairs got married at a go. Subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members started demanding dowry and pressurized the informant to remarry the applicant as per customs, as such, again the said marriage was solemnized on 7.12.2019 and heavy amount was spent by the informant. 5. Subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members started demanding Rs.1 lakh after the deceased had given birth to a baby- boy and thereupon another son was born to the deceased, as such, the demand was escalated to Rs.2 lakh, thereby led the deceased to death on 29.4.2024. 6. 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 two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations of demand of dowry are vague and it cannot be believed. Learned counsel has stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that second marriage was solemnized between the two families. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The deceased had nodular growth on her tongue and was treated upon in the month of June-July, 2020, as such, the said growth was found malignant and she was undergoing treatment for the same, as such, she committed suicide out of depression. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the inquest report was prepared well before the institution of FIR. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.5.2024 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 on the ground that the applicant and other family members used to subject the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry and the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant. 10. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that it has come up in the inquest report itself that applicant and his family members were not present in the house rather they had run away from the place of occurrence, which indicates foul play. The said conduct speaks about the complicity of the applicant. It is also argued that the treatment papers of the deceased appended to the bail application pertain to the year 2020. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant coupled with the fact that applicant had run away from the place of occurrence at the time of inquest proceedings, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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. 14. 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 :- 11.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad