Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142339 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28464 of 2025 Applicant :- Charan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Pandey,Deepak Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, 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 No.106 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co- accused persons, namely, Rambeer, Kabutari and Karan, who happen to be the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in- law (Jeth) respectively and they have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 2.6.2025 and 4.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.19077 of 2025 and 16337 of 2025, as such, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no particular demand of dowry in it. Subsequently in the statement of the witness recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the demand has been escalated to that of Apache motorcycle and golden chain, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 25.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The applicant being husband of the deceased is the main accused person, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 20.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad