Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101302 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21543 of 2025 Applicant :- Abdul Kareem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tripathi,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Prasad Gupta Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of informant. 2. Heard Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 373 of 2024, under Sections 85 & 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Sarai Akil, District - Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Muslim Rites on 27.06.2024. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry thereby leading her to death on 20.10.2024 at about 05:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 8 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant has a strong alibi as he was not present at the place of occurrence rather he was at Mau attending to his duty. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that one of the co-accused person i.e. his brother has been exonerated as he was found present in Kanpur at the time of incident, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified. The applicant has simply been made an accused on account of him being the husband of the deceased person. The cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. No prosecution witness has been examined till date and the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 22.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no documentary evidence in support of alibi taken by the applicant. The deceased has expired within four months of her marriage and that too within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also taking into consideration the fact that the FIR has been instituted within reasonable time and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and also there is no evidence regarding the alibi of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 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:- 1.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad