Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132450 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27172 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandan Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajiv Chowdhury, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.254 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Manduvadih, District Varanasi 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 21.11.2021, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 8.11.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. No time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. The inquest proceedings of the deceased were undertaken on 8.11.2024 itself and the applicant was present at that time and he was arrayed as Panch witness no.1 in it. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted in the morning of 9.11.2024 at 00:40 hours 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. It was the applicant who had informed the police about the incident by dialing 112, as such, he is entitled for bail. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.11.2024 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the police had informed the informant about the incident and not the applicant and it is also alleged in the FIR that twice before the instant incident the matter was reported to the police station regarding demand of dowry and cruelty committed with the deceased person. It is further argued that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and he being the main accused is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, 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 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad