Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86130 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11537 of 2025 Applicant :- Ali Shah Habib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukul Yadav,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhaskar Bhadra,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1242 of 2024, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the engagement of the applicant with the victim was solemnized on 31.03.2022 for the marriage to be solemnized subsequently. Several gifts and pleasantries were exchanged at the time of said engagement including Rs.2.5 lacs cash. 5. Subsequent to it, the applicant is stated to have started calling the victim to several restaurants and hotels and had established corporeal relationship with her and he started demanding dowry from her and had subsequently refused to comply with the said promise. The FIR was instituted on 13.12.2024. 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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 2 years days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel has also stated that the instant case of consensual relationship has been converted into criminal case by the informant. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim got engaged into cordial relations elsewhere, as such had refused to marry the applicant instead and has instituted the instant FIR with malafide intention. The applicant had earlier on filed an application before the A.C.J.M-II, Moradabad for institution of the FIR against the victim herein and the instant FIR is a counter-blast to the said application which has been treated as complaint case. 8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2025 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 State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has misused his clout and has not explained criminal antecedents as there are two FIRs instituted against him i.e. (i) Case Crime No.447 of 2016 under sections 307, 323, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police station-Amroha Nagar, District-Amroha ; (ii) Case Crime No.746 of 2018 under sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, police station-Katghar, District- Moradabad but the applicant has not explained the aforesaid two criminal antecedents, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has nothing to do with the said FIR No.447 of 2016 as it is a matter of dowry case between some other person and applicant is not involved in the said case and in Case Crime No.746 of 2018, applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.01.2020, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 11. The order annexed as Case Crime No.746 of 2018 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police station-Katghar, District- Moradabad in the supplementary affidavit is of one Habiurrehman @ Habib Akhtar, Tanziurrehman and not the applicant. The said named Habiurrehman @ Habib Akhtar is also an accused in the instant FIR and has been arrayed as accused no.3 in the FIR. As such, criminal history of two cases against the applicant has not been explained. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has not been properly explained and the allegations against the applicant being serious in nature, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 13. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 :- 21.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad