Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106783 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23380 of 2025 Applicant :- Uday Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Kumar,Pramod Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.08 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Beejpur, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites in the month of April, 2024. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry, thereby led her to death on 10.02.2025 at about 1:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is admitted to the prosecution that it was the applicant who had informed the informant about the incident. The brother of the applicant is present at the time of inquest proceedings as the applicant was attending to his labour duties about 40 kilometers away and was not present at the time of incident. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2025 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 informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant had instituted the FIR after conducting last rites of the deceased person, as such, the FIR is not delayed. The said fact is mentioned in the FIR itself. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Uday Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad