Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132856 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26978 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhimanyu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.358 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115(2), 123, 80(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hanumant Vihar, District Kanpur Nagar 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 30.11.2020, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 08.09.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. 5. It is also alleged that the informant got the information in the evening and reached the hospital where the deceased was found brought dead. The deceased was put to death by the applicant and other family members and thereupon she was taken to the hospital. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It has been instituted after the inquest proceedings were undertaken at Hallett Hospital. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved and in the viscera report, aluminum phosphide chemical has been found. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear-cut case of false implication as the deceased was insisting on going to her sister's house and after refusal by the applicant, she has committed suicide. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of 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 fact that the FIR was instituted next day at 12:27 p.m. just a few hours after the inquest proceedings and the deceased persons 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 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 :- 6.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad