Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129124 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23756 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jeet Bahadur Gautam Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jeet Bahadur Gautam, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Buddhnagar, 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 on 22.02.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 26.02.2024 at about 05:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is the husband of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay cause. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, but applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.02.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherien it has been observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail." 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that statement of P.W.1 has been recorded and he is deliberately being not cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant. The deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that FIR is prompt, deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled with the fact that P.W.1 has been examined during trial and he is not being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 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 :- 1.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad