HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13159 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Tanveer Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kartikeya Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Salempur, District Deoria, 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 about two years before the incident. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 30.04.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than two days as it was instituted in the night of 02.05.2023 at 9:38 p.m. There is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is the husband of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased had Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Yadav, Shweta Singh Attre Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kartikeya Shukla Manish Gupta .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) delivered a baby on 19.04.2020 who expired on 21.04.2020 and she was feeling depressed owing to the said death of her infant, as such, she has committed suicide. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.05.2023, as such, he is incarcerated for about two years and three months. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the presumption of Section 113B of Evidence Act is against the applicant as the deceased has expired within the precincts of his house and she was being subjected to cruelty for not being able to bear a healthy child. Subsequently it has come up in the statement of the witnesses that there was demand of a bullet motorcycle. 8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 29.07.2025, three witnesses have been examined. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Chauhan vs. State of U.P., AIR 2023 SC 2149, has granted bail to the appellant therein on the ground that the appellant has been in custody for nearly two years four months and only two witnesses had been examined out of twenty six prosecution witnesses. 10. In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N. AIR 1973 SC 501, the Supreme Court has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. BAIL No. 13159 of 2024 2 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that only three witnesses have been examined to date, 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- Manish Gupta, 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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. September 8, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 13159 of 2024 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad