Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144539 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27181 of 2025 Applicant :- Subham Rai Alias Nityanand Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Rai,Piyush Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Piyush Sinha, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned counsels for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime/F.I.R. No.55 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Suhwal, District Ghazipur 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 06.02.2024 and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry, thereby led her to death in the night of 27.06.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about ten months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging, as such, it is a clear-cut case of suicide. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 29.06.2024, as such, he is incarcerated for about fourteen months and his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also claimed parity with co-accused persons, namely, Sachchidanand Rai and Smt. Shashikala, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively, who have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.4.2025 and 11.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10133 of 2025 and 34789 of 2024. The applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted in the morning of 28.06.2024 at about 7:41 a.m. and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the applicant being the husband and the deceased having expired within the precincts of his house, 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 :- 22.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad