Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108862 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43288 of 2018 Applicant :- Ravindra @ Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indresh Kumar Singh,Mohit Behari Mathur,Nehal Beg,Shashi Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sitaram Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri ,Mohit Behari Mathur,, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0245 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the co-accused per Ram Vinay as per Hindu rites three years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of a four wheeler as dowry and thereby led her to death by setting her afire on 27.08.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim had married elsewhere earlier on and there are photographs which stand admitted by PW-1 and PW-2 and an FIR was instituted by the informant as Case Crime No.47 of 2014 under sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station-Mehnagar, District Azamgarh, as such she was forced to marry the applicant and out of depression, she has committed suicide by setting herself afire. The applicant is the brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased person. There is an anomaly regarding the relationship of the applicant with the deceased person as the FIR mentions applicant to be the brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased person while her dying declaration indicates the applicant to be her father-in-law, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end which is admitted by learned counsel for the applicant also and the defence evidence is going on and there is a dying declaration in which the applicant has been assigned particular role of setting the deceased afire, as such he is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the dying declaration of the deceased person and the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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 :- 9.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad