Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123653 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25773 of 2025 Applicant :- Pawan Sahu Alias Dinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law officer 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.116 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Machhalisahar, District Jaunpur 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 13.11.2019. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 29.04.2025 at about 5:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant had reached the place of occurrence well before the institution of FIR, but had instituted it after much delay. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased peeved by that the said act that the other family members used to live in Mumbai and the father-in-law and mother-in-law were also undergoing treatment there and she wanted the applicant to take her to Mumbai, as such, depressed by the said refusal of the applicant to take her to Mumbai, had committed suicide. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that it has come up in the supplementary statement of the informant that there was demand of a golden chain, but the FIR and the first statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. does not indicate as to what was demanded, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 30.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. 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. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and the deceased having expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, 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. 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. 12. 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 :- 28.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad