HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20184 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar, 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. 273 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 applicant is the husband of the deceased person. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The FIR was instituted after the inquest proceedings and the family members were also present at the time of inquest proceedings and they have been arrayed as panch witness nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. It is a clear cut case of false implication. 6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2024. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Srivastava, Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar, G.A., Pranay Kumar Patel Alok Pratap Singh @ Chhotu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the informant was not present at the time of inquest proceedings, rather he had gone to institute the FIR, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the promptness of the FIR coupled by the period of incarceration, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application 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. September 1, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 20184 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad