Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119388 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13266 of 2025 Applicant :- Jay Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2024, under Sections 80(2) & 85 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Ali Nagar, District - Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites in the month of May, 2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry thereby leading her to death on 15.12.2024. 5. 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim had an upcoming exam at a center near her parental home, as such, she requested her husband (the applicant) to take her there 2-3 days prior but after his refusal, she has committed suicide. 8. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 9. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt. The cause of death of the deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and she has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and she has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that the FIR has been instituted within a reasonable time, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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:- 22.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad