Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131564 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26799 of 2025 Applicant :- Tejveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, 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. 195 of 2025, under Sections 80(2) & 85 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant as per Hindu Rites on 20.02.2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of additional dowry thereby leading her to death on 27.03.2025 at about 09:00 AM. 5. 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 by about 13 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no mentioning in the FIR regarding as to what was the demand made by the applicant as additional dowry. The applicant along with his wife used to live separately to other family members as he used to run a shop in a kiosk on road side. 7. 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 28.03.2025, 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. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted on the date of occurrence. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The applicant being her husband is the main accused person, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. 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 the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 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:- 5.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad