Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114380 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31369 of 2024 Applicant :- Amar Jeet Khanuja Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Fakharul Islam Jafri,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya,G.A.,Rama Kant Gupta Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rama Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, 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.64 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person on 17.11.2018. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.3 lakhs as dowry, thereby led her to death on 25.04.2024 by burn injuries. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed and there is no time of offence mentioned in it. The informant lives in Lucknow and had come all the way to Kanpur and had instituted the FIR. He was very much present at the time of inquest proceedings as he is panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings, which were complete the same day i.e. 25.04.2024 at 4:00 p.m. and subsequent to it the FIR has been instituted. At the time of inquest proceedings, the informant has not whispered a single word about demand of any dowry whatsoever, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR has been instituted just after the inquest proceedings as an afterthought after legal consultation. Had the applicant committed the said offence, the same would have been mentioned at the stage of inquest proceedings itself. The applicant is a bona fide person and works in a multinational company and earns quite a hansom amount of money, as such, there was no question for him to ask for any dowry and commit cruelty with the deceased person. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has also stated that it was a love marriage as the applicant belongs to Sikh community and the deceased was a Hindu lady, as such, the marriage ceremony was conducted in Arya Samaj Temple. The applicant is in jail since 11.05.2024, as such, he is incarcerated for more than one year. Already four witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with any evidence whatsoever. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it has been instituted immediately after completion of inquest proceedings on 25.04.2024, 4:00 p.m. and the time of FIR is 25.04.2024, 5:36 p.m., as such, it cannot be termed to be a delayed FIR and as an afterthought. 9. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. has further stated that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and she has been burnt 100%. It is not possible for any person to commit suicide and get burnt 100%, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed that too before the statement of the victim is recorded. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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 :- 16.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad