Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116630 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21141 of 2025 Applicant :- Monu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mishra,Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.227 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sehramau South, District Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites in the month of December, 2018. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 28.06.2024 at about 9:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The inquest proceedings of the deceased were undertaken on 28.06.2024 itself and were complete by 9:55 p.m. the same night. The informant has been arrayed as panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings and he did not whisper a single word about demand of dowry at that stage, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no particular demand of dowry in the FIR. There are plain allegations only, as such, the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not fulfilled. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the informant was panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Monu Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad