Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109731 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27916 of 2024 Applicant :- Pradeep @ Teetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Durvijay Singh, holding brief of Sri Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, 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 17.01.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs. One lac and a buffalo as dowry and thereby led her to death on 10.01.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted in the evening on 10.01.2024 at about 6:50 p.m. It is next stated that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at that time as he was sleeping in his dairy which was his business at that time, as such he has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. 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, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 10.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad