Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131495
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25782 of 2025
Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar,Dharmendra Kumar,Ram Shiromani Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Abhinav Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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.329 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about three years before the incident. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 22.07.2024 at about 1:00 a.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about twenty one hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The informant and applicant alongwith other family members were present at the time of inquest proceedings taken up on 23.07.2024, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 24.07.2024 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 FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the applicant being the husband of the deceased person and the deceased having expired within the precincts of his house coupled with the fact thatFIR was instituted on the date of incident itself, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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.
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 :- 5.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
