Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111468 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35509 of 2024 Applicant :- Nitesh Awasthi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Chaturvedi,Ghan Shyam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ghan Shyam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 267 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2023. 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. There is a demand of dowry in the instant case. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and also considering the fact that the FIR is prompt, there is a demand of dowry coupled by the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and also taking into consideration the fact that three witnesses have been examined to date, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 8. The bail application 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 laid down in the recent judgements 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:- 11.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad