Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132631 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24991 of 2025 Applicant :- Chhotelal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.681 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person in the year 2021, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of golden chain and one Biswa land in the village Markundi as dowry, thereby leading her to death between 17.9.2024 to 18.9.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning and there is no sign of use of force by any person whatsoever. There is only two simple injuries observed on the knees of the deceased person. There is statement of the doctor who has categorically stated that the said injuries could have been caused due to the hard bed of the said Nala from which the dead body was recovered, as such, the said injuries have not been inflicted to the deceased person. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear cut case of false implication as the FIR is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is the husband but he has been falsely implicated in this case. 7. 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 13.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the dead body of the deceased has been recovered very close to the house of the applicant. The bail application of co-accused persons, who happens to be mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased person, has already been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1689 of 2025. The said rejection order was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had ordered for expeditious disposal of trial within a period of six months vide order dated 9.5.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.6623 of 2025. As such, the applicant being the main accused person is also not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the dead body of the deceased was recovered adjacent to the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning, 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. 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 :- 6.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad