Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131546 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26837 of 2025 Applicant :- Fardeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Sasni, District - Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. It is further argued that the marriage between the applicant and the daughter of the informant (now deceased) was a love marriage, although it was converted into an arrange marriage and the said fact has been mentioned in the statement of the brother of the deceased person, as such, there was no occasion to demand of any kind of dowry. 6. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt. The deceased has expired within one month of her marriage and that too within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant being her husband is the main accused person and is not entitled for bail, 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and also taking into consideration the fact that the FIR has been instituted within a reasonable period and the deceased has expired within one months of her marriage and that too within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 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:- 5.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad