Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115629 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23491 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manju Shukla/Ojha,Sheel Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sheel Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the cause of death has been found to be septicemia as a result of ante mortem burn injury. The allegations are per se false. There was a daughter borne out of the said wedlock, as such there was no occasion for the applicant to set the deceased afire. The deceased was having relationship with her brother-in-law (devar), as such she wanted to live with him as earlier on, she had eloped with him and subsequently, she had committed suicide. 6. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.07.2024 and he is cooperating in trial. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the deceased was found 95% burn and she has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The applicant is the main accused, being husband of the deceased person, as such he is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant that too by burn injuries and there is nothing on record about the status of trial, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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. 11. 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 :- 17.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad