HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27720 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Mohd. Rashid and Ms. Noor Shaba Begum, Advocates holding brief of Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2024, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station - Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the applicant had strangulated his wife and daughter aged about 4 years and thereupon cut veins of his hand with an attempt to commit suicide on 12.02.2024 at about 04:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted the next day i.e. on 13.02.2024 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant himself came to the house and learnt about the double murder of his wife and daughter and out of depression, he himself attempted to commit suicide, as such, he has nothing to do with the said offence. The postmortem report negates the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arjun Jaiswal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) prosecution story as it indicates that his wife has been strangulated but the cause of death of his daughter could not ascertained, as such, her viscera was preserved and the report is still awaited. 7. Learned counsel has further contended that two witnesses of fact have been examined and they have contradicted their own statements made before the Investigating Officer. It is lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case. The applicant after committing murder of his wife and daughter, has tried to commit suicide himself as a cover up, as such, the rigors of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act apply to the instant case. The onus lies on the applicant to explain as to under what circumstances the death of his wife and daughter duo has occurred. 9. Learned AGA has further argued that the cause of death of wife of the applicant is not by hanging rather it is strangulation which indicates that it was the applicant who put her to death, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and taking into consideration the fact that the cause of death of wife of the applicant is not by hanging coupled by the fact that the applicant was found in the precincts of the very same house whereby the two dead bodies were recovered, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts BAIL No. 27720 of 2025 2 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. October 8, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 27720 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad