HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28816 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, 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.92 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 85. 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant does a job at Noida and has nothing to do with the said offence. Even the daughter of the applicant had called from the mobile of the applicant and informed the sister of the deceased person about the incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem strangulation. The applicant as a bona fide act had admitted the deceased to Sai Hospital, Moradabad. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 06.02.2024 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 deceased has expired within the precincts of the house Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Shyam Shanker Pandey, Subodh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rohit .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration 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. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. 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. 9. 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. September 1, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 28816 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad