Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133762 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15795 of 2024 Applicant :- Prakash @ Kanha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Trivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 22 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 & 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Basai Mohammadpur, District - Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, one unknown dead body was found by the Chowkidar of Village- Basai, Mohammadpur on 16.02.2022 at about 07:30 AM when he had gone for morning walk and the matter was reported to the police station the same day. The FIR was instituted on 23.02.2022 at about 04:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the recovery of the dead body of deceased person on 16.02.2022, the inquest report and the postmortem report were prepared on 23.02.2022. Subsequent to it, the police was pleased to file closure report in the said matter on 17.06.2022, although the Circle Officer returned the said closure report on 18.06.2022 with a direction to conduct further investigation by taking into consideration the electronic evidence. After the thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer was pleased to file the closure report again on 17.07.2022. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that the sister of the deceased person, Ragini Verma, had come to the police station and given an application stating therein that her sister was married to the applicant and the said marriage was a love marriage. Both used to live in Udaipur and she suspected that it was the applicant, who had committed the murder of her sister. It is argued that the said application is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and, as such, it cannot be taken into consideration. 7. Learned counsel has next submitted that the applicant was arrested by police on 29.08.2023 as he has been made an accused only on the basis of his own confession made before police. There is no evidence against the applicant except the said confession and the said confession is being hit by Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act and has no value in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel has lastly prayed 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 by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2023, 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. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the conduct of the applicant in the instant case is very relevant as he had married the victim as she had eloped with him out of sheer love but he did not report the matter anywhere after her abscondance since 16.02.2022. He has neither lodged any missing report nor any other report before any authorities whatsoever uptill his arrest on 29.08.2023. The intervening period is about one and a half year and in this regard, the explanation of the applicant has to be accorded. 10. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that there are two independent witnesses, namely, Vinod Kumar and Sunil Kumar, who have seen the applicant and his brother taking the victim on a motorcycle. The applicant and other family members were absconding, as such, the said abscondance itself speaks volume of their complicity in the instant case. There is no explanation as to why and how and under what circumstances, the deceased had expired. 11. Learned counsel has next argued that the postmortem report of the deceased person indicates injury on the cranium of the deceased person which speaks volume of brutality met to her. Two witnesses i.e. P.W.- 1 Chowkidar and P.W.-2 the sister of the deceased person, Ragini Verma, have already been examined, as such, the trial is going on. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the conduct of the applicant as he being the husband of the deceased person did not report the matter anywhere since her abscondance coupled by the fact that the injuries have been found on the body of the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 13. The bail application 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:- 7.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad