Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128203 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24411 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhishek Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogesh Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishwajit Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Hathras, District- Hathras, 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 04.05.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of Bullet Motorcycle and Rs. 3,00,000/- as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 07.03.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that no time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted in the night of 07.03.2025 at about 08:30 PM. The family members of the informant were present at the time of inquest proceedings and had not whispered a single word about demand of dowry, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The informant is the uncle of the deceased person and he has falsely implicated the applicant. 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 10.03.2025 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 as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are four injuries sustained by the deceased person and two of the injuries were on her legs, as such, it is not a simple case of suicide. Applicant is the husband of the deceased and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, as such applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. The provision of Section 94 BNSS provides that the Investigating Officer has to only look into three circumstances regarding the death of the deceased person i.e. suicide, homicide or accidental and he has not to opine about other factors in the case. The FIR was already instituted prior to the inquest proceedings. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, applicant being the husband of the deceased and FIR having been instituted within a reasonable time, 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 :- 31.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad