Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134688 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27423 of 2025 Applicant :- Narendra @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.B. Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri R.B. Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Somdev Dixit, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 109, 117(2), 118(1) BNS and Sections 4/24 of Arms Act, Police Station Nagla Khangar, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have slaughtered his wife and son aged about four years in the house of his neighbour on 23.09.2024 at about 10 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by 11 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the allegations are per se false. Even the place of occurrence is the house of neighbour of the applicant, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. There was no occasion for the applicant to commit the said offence that too by taking the deceased person to the house of his neighbour. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that it was the applicant who used to quarrel and has slaughtered his wife and son aged about four years in the said act. The dead bodies have been found from the house of his neighbour. 8. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the site plan indicates that the house of the applicant and his neighbour are adjacent to each other and the deceased had rushed to escape from the clutches of the applicant, as such she has been put to death by the applicant. There was no motive for neighbour of the applicant to commit the said offence, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant being only named accused person in the cold blooded murder of mother-son duo, 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 laid down in the recent judgements 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 :- 8.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad