Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36775 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25779 of 2024 Applicant :- Shailendra Ahirwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakash Chandra Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.726 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of certain amount of cash as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 05.12.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 8 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no sign of any use of force against the victim. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant was very much present at the time of inquest proceedings taken up on 06.12.2023 itself and he has been arrayed as panch witness no.2 in the inquest proceedings. He has not whispered a single word against the applicant. Had it been so, he would have allayed the allegations of demand of dowry and causing dowry death at that stage only. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.12.2023 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 A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that certain froth was coming out from the mouth of the deceased person and there is every possibility that she might have been poisoned as well. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 9. 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 of 8 days in institution of the FIR coupled with the facts that the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings and the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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. 10. Let the applicant- Shailendra Ahirwar, 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 12.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad