Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114854 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16450 of 2024 Applicant :- Harsh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey,Yadavendra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indu Bhushan Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indu Bhushan Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bela, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 25.05.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.one lac and a motorcycle as dowry and thereby led her to death on 06.06.2022 at about 11 a.m. 6. 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. It is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased has not sustained any injury except ligature mark on her neck. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. It is next stated that the applicant is handicapped from his right hand and the said certificate is annexed with the rejoinder affidavit filed today in the Court. 8. Learned counsel has next argued that four witnesses have already been examined and there is no likelihood of the applicant tempering with the evidence. It is next stated that mother of the applicant is suffering from Cancer and there are less chances of her survival, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the deceased has sustained two injuries, one is ligature mark and another is contused swelling with bluish discoloration on the right side of temporal parietal region measuring 8 cm x 6 cm under skin clotted blood and haematoma was present. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that hyoid bone was fractured and the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant that too by strangulation, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation and also taking into account the fact that four witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 :- 16.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad