Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118824 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22779 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.35 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Pipari, District Sonbhadra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 05.05.2017. The applicant is stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 20.02.2024 at about 10:00 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the deceased had expired just a few months before the completion of stipulated period of seven years. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that three witnesses have already been examined and there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence. There are nineteen witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2024 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 deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and no other family members have been nominated in the case as it was the applicant and deceased duo who were living separately in the said house, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled with the fact fact that witnesses of fact have already been examined, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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. 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 :- 22.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad