Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121460 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25437 of 2025 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly,Ravi Bhushan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 22.04.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of a car as dowry and thereby led her to death on 16.03.2025 at about 5 p.m. 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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that it was the second marriage of the couple. The applicant has two sons from his earlier marriage and the deceased had one daughter from her earlier marriage. No issue was borne out of the said wedlock subsequent to it. The truth is that the deceased suspected that the applicant loved his sons more than her daughter and has committed suicide as such. 7. In support of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of the earlier mother-in-law of the deceased person, who has stated that she suspected that the applicant loved his sons more than deceased's daughter. It is further stated that there was no question for demanding dowry as it was the second marriage of the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that Rs. two lacs were transferred by father of the applicant to the account of the deceased person and a plot measuring 80 square mtrs. was purchased by using the said amount on the next day of transfer of the amount. A complete bank statement has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit which indicates that there was a money transaction between the parties and money has been transferred to and fro the account of the deceased and her sister and family members of the applicant, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there was demand of a car and the FIR is prompt as it has been instituted within eight hours of the offence. It is further stated that as per inquest report also, it is mentioned in the opinion of the inquest witnesses that the accused persons had committed the said offence of death of the deceased person, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging which even stands mentioned in the inquest proceedings, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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. 14. 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 :- 24.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad