HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25346 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dilip Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.275 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Moth, District Jhansi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is material contradiction in the statement of the informant recorded as PW-1 to the FIR as the factum of the deceased having called the informant and told about demand of dowry stands falsified. The FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no CDR to corroborated the allegation that the demand of dowry was made one day before the incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.11.2024, as such, he is incarcerated for more than nine months. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Kumar Singh Pankaj Alias Devendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the fact that the trial is going on, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. 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. 9. 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. September 9, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 25346 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad