Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121483 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25394 of 2025 Applicant :- Durgesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Varun Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Varun Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, 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.520 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 12.05.2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of a motorcycle as dowry, thereby led her to death on 05.12.2022 at about 2:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. There are enough contradictions in the statement of PW-1/informant examined in court. The reason for her death is stated to be the unemployment of the applicant as mentioned in the cross-examination by the informant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.12.2022, as such, his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian stand violated as his period of incarceration comes out to be one year and eight months and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as it is moving at a snail's pace. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no contradiction in the statement of the witness as the said statement regarding unemployment stands refuted in the very cross-examination the same day, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the FIR being prompt and the deceased having expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and even the statement of PW-1 being intact, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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. 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 :- 24.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad