Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123959 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21753 of 2025 Applicant :- Umesh Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh,Rishabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.619 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has indicated several contradictions in the statement of witnesses. It is further argued that no pleasantries were exchanged in the marriage as it was a love marriage. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and there are three injuries sustained by the deceased person. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is further argued that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of the FIR and there being three injuries sustained by the deceased person coupled by the fact that 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. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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. 10. 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 :- 28.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad