Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144944 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28872 of 2025 Applicant :- Kumar Vaibhav Srivastava Alias Kumar Vaibhav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajatshatru Singh,Anuj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajatshatru Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaurasia, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arun Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.432 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Kumar Vaibhav Srivastava and Others), under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jhunsi, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the informant has prayed for adjournment today. 5. The said prayer of counsel for the informant is rejected. 6. Expressing the need to decide the bail applications expeditiously the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5480/2025 Lakshya Tawar Vs. Cenral Bureau of Investigation has opined as follows:- "5. In the matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time." 7. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 29.11.2017 and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry, thereby led her to death in the night of 20/21.10.2024. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The inquest report of the deceased person was prepared on 21.10.2024 itself and the said proceedings were complete at 2:00 p.m. itself. The informant is panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings and his other family members were also there at that time. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant had given an application at the police station about the said incident for getting the inquest proceedings and PMR conducted, but he has not whispered a single word about the demand of dowry. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased was physically incapable of walking as she was crippled for her lower limbs, as such, it was not possible for her to hang herself. 11. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said allegations are false. There is no evidence to substantiate the said argument. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the informant being present at the time of inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Kumar Vaibhav Srivastava Alias Kumar Vaibhav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad