Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115870 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20185 of 2025 Applicant :- Saurabh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Vivek Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Navin Kumar Pandey,Vivek Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Ms. Priti Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.973 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 20.6.2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.6 lakh as additional dowry, thereby leading her to death on 17.11.2024 at about 09:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about thirteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR was instituted after inquest proceedings and postmortem examination of the deceased person as an afterthought. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that at the time of inquest proceedings the brother-in-law of the deceased person was present and the three sisters were married in the same village and there is no allegation of demand of dowry from any of the sisters earlier on, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. Learned counsel has stated that the application was given by the informant at the police station for postmortem examination of the deceased person in the night itself, whereby there was no allegation of demand of dowry at that stage in the application moved by the informant on 17.11.2024 before the D.M., Bulandshahar. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said application dated 17.11.2024 was moved by the informant for the expeditious postmortem examination of the deceased and it was not required to him to mention the details of the offence in it. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the FIR is prompt which was instituted the same night. The informant lives in Aligarh, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, 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. 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 :- 17.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad