Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141734 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28359 of 2025 Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, 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 Session Trial No.846 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0051 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Allahpur, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co- accused persons, namely, Rajpal, Smt. Sudama and Brajesh, who happen to be the father-in-law, sister-in-law (Jethani) and brother-in-law (Jeth) respectively of the deceased person and they have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.5.2025, 8.7.2025 and 23.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12196 of 2025, 23383 of 2025 and 25230 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 stated that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The informant has filed an affidavit suggesting that the deceased was suffering from illness, as such, had committed suicide. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 08.02.2025 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