Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116881 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29167 of 2024 Applicant :- Kaushal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunder Singh,Sunil Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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.255 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bachharayun, District- Amroha 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 24.5.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry. The informant was informed that the deceased had fallen down from the roof, and as such, she had expired on 12.9.2023 at 12:00 hours, but it was the apprehension of the informant that the deceased has been put to death by pushing her from the roof. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the injury report does not indicate as to whether it is homicidal or an accidental death, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no particular demand of dowry mentioned in the FIR, as such, the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not fulfilled. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.9.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the injuries sustained by the deceased are on both side of the body of the deceased. Had she fallen from the roof, she would have sustained injury only on one side of the body. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of the FIR and the injuries sustained by the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 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. 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 :- 18.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad