Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144550 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28804 of 2025 Applicant :- Virendra Alias Veeru Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swayamanand Sisodiya,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.137 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 123 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Jahagirabad, District- Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about six years before the incident. The applicant is stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.5 lakh as dowry, thereby led her to death on 22.3.2025 at about 08:30 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than seventeen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the inquest report of the deceased was prepared well before the institution of FIR as it was complete on 23.3.2025 at 11:00 a.m. itself and it stands mentioned in the inquest report that family members of both the parties were present at that time. The said report also indicates that bangles of the deceased were intact. If she had been forcibly administered poison, at least one of her bangles would have broken. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that there are minor injuries sustained by the deceased. One is below the chin and the another is on elbow. The said injuries are abrasions and may not be caused at the time of forcible administration of poison. Learned counsel has stated that the cause of death is stated to be antemortem cardio pulmonary arrest and poisoning was suspected, as such, viscera was preserved. The viscera report is still awaited. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the aunt (Bua) of the deceased was also married in the very same family, but there is no allegation that there is any demand of dowry from her aunt. The statement of aunt of the deceased Suman has been recorded after a delay of twelve days whereby it is stated that applicant had forcibly administered poison to the deceased and had even run to cause injuries to his father. The said allegations are per se false. The said statement has been garnered as an afterthought just to create evidence against the applicant. 9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.3.2025 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 11. 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 family members of both the parties 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. 12. Let the applicant- Virendra Alias Veeru, 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 pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad