Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12649 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29023 of 2024 Applicant :- Nanhi Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Kamlesh Shrama,Viveka Nand Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2348 of 2021. 2. Heard Sri Viveka Nand Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.275 of 2020, U/S 498-A, 304-B, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Maudarwaja, District - Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel has stated that the said dying declaration of the deceased person does not fall within the purview of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that no new ground has been given by learned counsel for the applicant, as such, she is not entitled for bail. 7. A dying declaration by the victim, recorded u/s 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, provides crucial evidence. The deceased explicitly stated in her dying declaration that her husband and the applicant, her mother-in-law, set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on her while they were alone in the house and her father-in-law has gone to agricultural field. The victim also revealed a history of physical abuse by her husband and the applicant, while exempting her father-in-law from any mistreatment. Tragically, the victim succumbed to her injuries sustained within the precincts of applicant's house, merely four years into her marriage. 8. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments presented by counsel for both parties, and particularly the deceased's dying declaration implicating the applicant and her husband in setting her ablaze, this Court finds that this is not an appropriate case for granting bail to the applicant, especially given the victim's untimely death within four years of her marriage and within the precincts of applicant's house. 9. The bail application 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 laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex 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:- 24.1.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad