HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23268 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Trial No.485 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0008 of 2025, under Sections 85, 103(1), 238(A), 240 B.N.S., Police Station Jataha Bazar, District Kushinagar with the prayer to enlarge her on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. A missing report was instituted by the husband of the deceased person at the police station, which indicates that there was no suspicion of foul play at that stage, but subsequently an application was given by the brother of the deceased suspecting that father-in-law of the applicant might have committed the said offence and after postmortem examination the said FIR has been instituted as an afterthought. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no evidence of illicit relationship of the applicant with her father-in-law, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aashirwad Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pawan Kumar, Vijay Kumar Kashyap Gudiya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 7.1.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that dead body of the deceased person has been recovered from the septic tank of the toilet within the precincts of house of the applicant only and her father-in-law are stated to have retrieved the dead body and had cleaned it. There is a recovery of half burnt part of cot at the pointing out of the applicant. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General has also stated that as per the provisions of Section 109 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the onus lies on the applicant, as such, she is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and family members and there being recovery of the said piece of cot at the pointing out of the applicant and also the circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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. September 1, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 23268 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad