Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109723 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27531 of 2024 Applicant :- Bindu Sagar Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Maurya,Om Prakash Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 209 of 2023, under Sections 304B, 328, 201, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Shoharatgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 applicant is the husband of the deceased person. The FIR is delayed by five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The deceased was admitted by the applicant in a hospital and was discharged the next day and she was readmitted in the hospital and then expired, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. 5. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next stated the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.07.2023 and three witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial in near future. The applicant is cooperating in trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the deceased person has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant within five years of her marriage, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that 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