Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113846 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15191 of 2024 Applicant :- Parvej Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Dharmendra Kumar,Rajeev Sawhney Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kapil Tyagi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajeev Sawhney, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kapil Tyagi, 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. 200 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Phase 3rd, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar, 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 Muslim Rites on 03.06.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs and a wagon-R car as dowry thereby leading her to death on 06.06.2023. 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 the allegations are per se false. The cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only four witnesses of fact have been examined till date. There is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2023, 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. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted in the night of 07.06.2023 at 02:30 AM. The trial is at its conclusive end as four witnesses of fact have been examined and only formal witnesses are yet to be examined, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that four witnesses of fact have also deposed against the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 12. 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:- 15.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad