Sachin v. State of U.P.). Thereafter

5. First bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated

22.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49181 of 2018 (Sachin Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: " Heard Mr. Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of applicant namely Kunnu Tyagi was solemnized with Shanu Tyagi in November, 2014. Initially the said marriage was solemnized as a Court marriage but thereafter the marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of two years and eleven months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.10.2017, in which Shanu Tyagi, the wife of the brother of the applicant sustained superficial and deep burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim was rushed to the C.H.C. Hospital, Kharkhoda from where she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the victim was got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 11.10.2017. While the victim was undergoing treatment at the aforesaid hospital, her dying declaration was recorded on 13.10.2017, which is at page 38 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the victim has implicated the family members of her in-laws in the commission of alleged crime. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 12.10.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Kali Charan Tyagi (father-in-law), Kunti Devi (mother-in-law), Sachin Tyagi (Jeth), Antim Tyagi (Jethani) Archana (Nand) 3 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The victim succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.10.2017 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.10.2017 itself. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was 70 % deep thermal burn with perineal burn. The injuries found on the body of the deceased has been described by the Doctor as follows:- "Alleged UH/o thermal burns sustained at home when her in laws poured kerosene over her and lit fire and fire was doused by husband using water? no H/0 LOC/seizures ENT bleed/fall No H/o Past medical illness married three years son 1 and 1/2 years old LMP 1 and 1/2 years back lactating O/E GC critical conscious, oriented P 120 Min CVS S1 S2 present. BP 100/70 mm B.P 100/70 mm RR-22/mint smell of kerosene present dehydradion int. 70 % burn deep thermal burns with perineal burn as pr chart patient was admitted to BICU i a critical condition IV fluids and IV antibiotics were given regular dressings were done PC, ICU eye call were done and advice followed. However, patient's condition remained critical patient had spikes of fever patient develped cardiac arrest on

23.10.2017 (PR was given but patient could not be revived. Patient is declared dead on 23.10.2017 at 8:30 PM)" Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 25.6.2018 against three of the named accused under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Two of the named accused namely, Antim Tyagi and Archana (nand) of the deceased have been excluded. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated

22.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018 has neither been disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been detailed by the learned counsel for the applicant, at the time of hearing of the present bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 6.5.2018. The applicant has no 4 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is thus submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2017 which have been brought by means of a supplementary affidavit filed today. Prior to the recording of the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration of the victim has already been recorded on 13.10.2017. There is clear contradiction in the dying declaration as well as the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that prosecution story as unfolded the F.I.R. as per the dying declaration/statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be probable. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years and she had died at her matrimonial home just after two years and eleven months of her marriage. The deceased had died on account of burn injuries sustained by her. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. Rebutting the statement urged by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased has clearly implicated the present applicant in the criminality, giving rise to the present applicant for bail. There is nothing on the record to dislodge the testimony of the victim herself in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicants stands rejected. However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight. 5 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 Order Date :- 22.1.2019 "

6. Subsequently, applicant Sachin Tyagi filed IInd bail application which was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9228 of 2023 (Sachin Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.). The same was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2023. For ready reference, the order dated 13.03.2023 is extracted herein-under:- " Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This repeat application for bail has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated

22.1.2019. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: "Heard Mr. Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of applicant namely Kunnu Tyagi was solemnized with Shanu Tyagi in November, 2014. Initially the said marriage was solemnized as a Court marriage but thereafter the marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of two years and eleven months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.10.2017, in which Shanu Tyagi, the wife of the brother of the applicant sustained superficial and deep burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim was rushed to the C.H.C. Hospital, Kharkhoda from where she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the victim was got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 11.10.2017. While the victim was undergoing treatment at the aforesaid hospital, her dying declaration 6 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 was recorded on 13.10.2017, which is at page 38 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the victim has implicated the family members of her in-laws in the commission of alleged crime. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 12.10.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Kali Charan Tyagi (father-in-law), Kunti Devi (mother-in-law), Sachin Tyagi (Jeth), Antim Tyagi (Jethani) Archana (Nand) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The victim succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.10.2017 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.10.2017 itself. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was 70 % deep thermal burn with perineal burn. The injuries found on the body of the deceased has been described by the Doctor as follows:- "Alleged UH/o thermal burns sustained at home when her in laws poured kerosene over her and lit fire and fire was doused by husband using water no H/0 LOC/seizures ENT bleed/fall No H/o Past medical illness married three years son 1 and 1/2 years old LMP 1 and 1/2 years back lactating O/E GC critical conscious, oriented P 120 Min CVS S1 S2 present. BP 100/70 mm B.P 100/70 mm RR-22/mint smell of kerosene present dehydradion int. 70 % burn deep thermal burns with perineal burn as pr chart patient was admitted to BICU i a critical condition IV fluids and IV antibiotics were given regular dressings were done PC, ICU eye call were done and advice followed. However, patient's condition remained critical patient had spikes of fever patient develped cardiac arrest on

23.10.2017 (PR was given but patient could not be revived. Patient is declared dead on 23.10.2017 at 8:30 PM)" Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 25.6.2018 against three of the named accused under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Two of the named accused namely, Antim Tyagi and Archana (nand) of 7 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 the deceased have been excluded. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated

22.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018 has neither been disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been detailed by the learned counsel for the applicant, at the time of hearing of the present bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 6.5.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is thus submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2017 which have been brought by means of a supplementary affidavit filed today. Prior to the recording of the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration of the victim has already been recorded on 13.10.2017. There is clear contradiction in the dying declaration as well as the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that prosecution story as unfolded the F.I.R. as per the dying declaration/statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be probable. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years and she had died at her matrimonial home just after two years and eleven months of her marriage. The deceased had died on account of burn injuries sustained by her. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. Rebutting the statement urged by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased has clearly implicated the present applicant in the criminality, giving rise to the present applicant for bail. There is nothing on the record to dislodge the testimony of the victim herself in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicants stands rejected. 8 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight. " Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 6.5.2018. As such, he has undergone more than four years and ten months of incarceration. He has then invited the attention of Court to the order dated 22.1.2019 and on basis of thereof he submits that inspite of the clear direction issued by this Court to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months, the trial has not yet concluded. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that the deceased has nominated the applicant as an active accused in her dying declaration. According to learned A.G.A., the observations made in the order dated

22.1.2019 are simply directory in nature and nor compliance thereof by Court below will not automatically result in enlargement of applicant on bail. Applicant is guilty of committing a heinous crime. As such, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. AS a result, present application fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 13.3.2023 "

8. Subsequent to above, applicant has now approached this Court by filing present bail application for the 3rd time.

9. Learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to order dated 13.03.2023, 9 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 the trial of the case commenced before court below. Upto this stage, two prosecution witnesses of fact namely P.W.-1 Garbit Tyagi and P.W.-2 Jitendra Tyagi have deposed before court below. However, P.W.-2 has not supported the F.I.R. and has been declared hostile. In view of above development which has occurred subsequent to above order dated 13.03.2023, it is urged by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed this 3rd application for bail. He submits that cause of death of the deceased is due to ante-mortem burn injury. Applicant is jeth of the deceased but an inmate of the house, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, burden is upon applicant himself to discharge the said burden. Upto this stage the said burden remains undischarged. No benefit can be derived by the applicant from the fact that P.W.-2 (first informant) has been declared hostile. On the above premise, learned A.G.A contends that no good ground exists to enlarge the applicant on bail.

11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact since all the prosecution witnesses of fact have not yet been examined, therefore the innocence of the applicant cannot be inferred simply on the basis of the deposition of P.W.-2, nothing has emerged upto this stage on the basis of which false or malicious implication of applicant could be inferred, the submission urged by the learned A.G.A. could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, at this stage therefore irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case this Court finds that no new or good ground has been made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.

13. As a result, repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

14. It is accordingly rejected."

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since

06.05.2018. As such, he has undergone more than 7 years of incarceration. 10 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against applicant on 04.08.2018. The charges were framed against applicant by Court below, vide framing of charge order dated 13.05.2019. As per the charge sheet, there are as many as 13 prosecution witnesses nominated therein. However, up to this stage, only 7 prosecution witnesses have deposed before Court below. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the prosecution is not pursuing the trial diligently. On account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial, the liberty of applicant is being jeopardized. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, the learned counsel for applicant submits that right to speedy trial is now recognized as a fundamental right of an accused. Since on account of the indifferent attitude and conduct of prosecution, aforementioned fundamental right of applicant stands infringed, therefore, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 06.05.2018. As such, he has undergone more than 7 years of incarceration. Apart from above, since the deposition of the first informant and other important prosecution witnesses of fact have already been recorded before Court below, therefore, in that eventuality, in case, applicant is enlarged on bail then it cannot be said that applicant shall neither terrorize the witnesses nor shall hamper the course of trial. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that no good or sufficient ground now exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of above applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial .

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that applicant is the Jeth of deceased. As per the dying declaration of deceased, the role of pouring kerosene upon the deceased has been assigned to applicant. The death of deceased has occurred within 7 years of her marriage. As such, the death of deceased is a dowry death. Apart from above, the occurrence giving 11 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred in the matrimonial home of the deceased, of which the present applicant is also a resident. With reference to the provisions contained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the learned A.G.A. submits that since the death of deceased is a dowry death, therefore, the burden to dislodge the statutory presumption that it is not a dowry death is upon the applicant. However, up to this stage, no such material has emerged on record, on the basis of which, contrary to the said presumption can be drawn against applicant. With reference to the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the learned A.G.A. contends that there is no explanation on record with regard to the manner of occurrence. No opinion regarding acceptability/reliability of the dying declaration of deceased can be formed at this stage as it is only after the entire prosecution evidence has been laid by the prosecution that an opinion can be formed as to whether, the said dying declaration is reliable and acceptable and whether any corroboration of the same is required or not, therefore, at this interim stage, the dying declaration of the deceased has been treated as sacrosanct. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to the order sheet of the concerned Sessions Trial and with reference to the same, he submits that the mother of applicant is also a co-accused and repeatedly exemption application has been filed on behalf of the mother seeking exemption from appearing before Court below. There is nothing on record to show that any application under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused praying segregation of his trial. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. would thus submit that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. However, the learned A.G.A. submits that considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the role of applicant in committing the crime in question, interest of justice shall be served, in case, s positive direction is issued by this Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously on day to day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. In case, an adjournment/exemption is prayed for, the same shall be granted only on specific and recorded reasons.

8. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused, considering the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad 12 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, this Court finds that interest of justice shall better be served, in case, a positive direction is issued to Court below. Accordingly, Court below i.e. the concerned Sessions Judge dealing with Sessions trial No. 789 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin Tyagi), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kharkhaunda, District-Meerut is directed to proceed with the trial with all expedition on day to day basis. No exemption application/adjournment shall be allowed or granted by Court below except for specific and recorded reasons. In case, an adjournment is inevitable, the same shall be allowed but on cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the party claiming adjournment/exemption.

9. Court below shall further endevour to conclude the trial within a period of 3 months from today.

10. Matter shall re-appear for orders as fresh on 04.11.2025.

11. Office shall communicate this order to the Court concerned within a week from today. September 4, 2025 Vinay (Rajeev Misra,J.)

5. First bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated

22.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49181 of 2018 (Sachin Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: " Heard Mr. Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of applicant namely Kunnu Tyagi was solemnized with Shanu Tyagi in November, 2014. Initially the said marriage was solemnized as a Court marriage but thereafter the marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of two years and eleven months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.10.2017, in which Shanu Tyagi, the wife of the brother of the applicant sustained superficial and deep burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim was rushed to the C.H.C. Hospital, Kharkhoda from where she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the victim was got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 11.10.2017. While the victim was undergoing treatment at the aforesaid hospital, her dying declaration was recorded on 13.10.2017, which is at page 38 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the victim has implicated the family members of her in-laws in the commission of alleged crime. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 12.10.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Kali Charan Tyagi (father-in-law), Kunti Devi (mother-in-law), Sachin Tyagi (Jeth), Antim Tyagi (Jethani) Archana (Nand) 3 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The victim succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.10.2017 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.10.2017 itself. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was 70 % deep thermal burn with perineal burn. The injuries found on the body of the deceased has been described by the Doctor as follows:- "Alleged UH/o thermal burns sustained at home when her in laws poured kerosene over her and lit fire and fire was doused by husband using water? no H/0 LOC/seizures ENT bleed/fall No H/o Past medical illness married three years son 1 and 1/2 years old LMP 1 and 1/2 years back lactating O/E GC critical conscious, oriented P 120 Min CVS S1 S2 present. BP 100/70 mm B.P 100/70 mm RR-22/mint smell of kerosene present dehydradion int. 70 % burn deep thermal burns with perineal burn as pr chart patient was admitted to BICU i a critical condition IV fluids and IV antibiotics were given regular dressings were done PC, ICU eye call were done and advice followed. However, patient's condition remained critical patient had spikes of fever patient develped cardiac arrest on

23.10.2017 (PR was given but patient could not be revived. Patient is declared dead on 23.10.2017 at 8:30 PM)" Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 25.6.2018 against three of the named accused under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Two of the named accused namely, Antim Tyagi and Archana (nand) of the deceased have been excluded. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated

22.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018 has neither been disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been detailed by the learned counsel for the applicant, at the time of hearing of the present bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 6.5.2018. The applicant has no 4 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is thus submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2017 which have been brought by means of a supplementary affidavit filed today. Prior to the recording of the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration of the victim has already been recorded on 13.10.2017. There is clear contradiction in the dying declaration as well as the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that prosecution story as unfolded the F.I.R. as per the dying declaration/statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be probable. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years and she had died at her matrimonial home just after two years and eleven months of her marriage. The deceased had died on account of burn injuries sustained by her. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. Rebutting the statement urged by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased has clearly implicated the present applicant in the criminality, giving rise to the present applicant for bail. There is nothing on the record to dislodge the testimony of the victim herself in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicants stands rejected. However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight. 5 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 Order Date :- 22.1.2019 "

6. Subsequently, applicant Sachin Tyagi filed IInd bail application which was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9228 of 2023 (Sachin Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.). The same was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2023. For ready reference, the order dated 13.03.2023 is extracted herein-under:- " Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This repeat application for bail has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated

22.1.2019. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: "Heard Mr. Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of applicant namely Kunnu Tyagi was solemnized with Shanu Tyagi in November, 2014. Initially the said marriage was solemnized as a Court marriage but thereafter the marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of two years and eleven months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.10.2017, in which Shanu Tyagi, the wife of the brother of the applicant sustained superficial and deep burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim was rushed to the C.H.C. Hospital, Kharkhoda from where she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the victim was got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 11.10.2017. While the victim was undergoing treatment at the aforesaid hospital, her dying declaration 6 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 was recorded on 13.10.2017, which is at page 38 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the victim has implicated the family members of her in-laws in the commission of alleged crime. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 12.10.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Kali Charan Tyagi (father-in-law), Kunti Devi (mother-in-law), Sachin Tyagi (Jeth), Antim Tyagi (Jethani) Archana (Nand) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The victim succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.10.2017 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.10.2017 itself. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was 70 % deep thermal burn with perineal burn. The injuries found on the body of the deceased has been described by the Doctor as follows:- "Alleged UH/o thermal burns sustained at home when her in laws poured kerosene over her and lit fire and fire was doused by husband using water no H/0 LOC/seizures ENT bleed/fall No H/o Past medical illness married three years son 1 and 1/2 years old LMP 1 and 1/2 years back lactating O/E GC critical conscious, oriented P 120 Min CVS S1 S2 present. BP 100/70 mm B.P 100/70 mm RR-22/mint smell of kerosene present dehydradion int. 70 % burn deep thermal burns with perineal burn as pr chart patient was admitted to BICU i a critical condition IV fluids and IV antibiotics were given regular dressings were done PC, ICU eye call were done and advice followed. However, patient's condition remained critical patient had spikes of fever patient develped cardiac arrest on

23.10.2017 (PR was given but patient could not be revived. Patient is declared dead on 23.10.2017 at 8:30 PM)" Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 25.6.2018 against three of the named accused under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Two of the named accused namely, Antim Tyagi and Archana (nand) of 7 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 the deceased have been excluded. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated

22.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018 has neither been disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been detailed by the learned counsel for the applicant, at the time of hearing of the present bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 6.5.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is thus submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2017 which have been brought by means of a supplementary affidavit filed today. Prior to the recording of the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration of the victim has already been recorded on 13.10.2017. There is clear contradiction in the dying declaration as well as the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that prosecution story as unfolded the F.I.R. as per the dying declaration/statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be probable. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years and she had died at her matrimonial home just after two years and eleven months of her marriage. The deceased had died on account of burn injuries sustained by her. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. Rebutting the statement urged by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased has clearly implicated the present applicant in the criminality, giving rise to the present applicant for bail. There is nothing on the record to dislodge the testimony of the victim herself in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicants stands rejected. 8 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight. " Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 6.5.2018. As such, he has undergone more than four years and ten months of incarceration. He has then invited the attention of Court to the order dated 22.1.2019 and on basis of thereof he submits that inspite of the clear direction issued by this Court to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months, the trial has not yet concluded. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that the deceased has nominated the applicant as an active accused in her dying declaration. According to learned A.G.A., the observations made in the order dated

22.1.2019 are simply directory in nature and nor compliance thereof by Court below will not automatically result in enlargement of applicant on bail. Applicant is guilty of committing a heinous crime. As such, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. AS a result, present application fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 13.3.2023 "

8. Subsequent to above, applicant has now approached this Court by filing present bail application for the 3rd time.

9. Learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to order dated 13.03.2023, 9 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 the trial of the case commenced before court below. Upto this stage, two prosecution witnesses of fact namely P.W.-1 Garbit Tyagi and P.W.-2 Jitendra Tyagi have deposed before court below. However, P.W.-2 has not supported the F.I.R. and has been declared hostile. In view of above development which has occurred subsequent to above order dated 13.03.2023, it is urged by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed this 3rd application for bail. He submits that cause of death of the deceased is due to ante-mortem burn injury. Applicant is jeth of the deceased but an inmate of the house, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, burden is upon applicant himself to discharge the said burden. Upto this stage the said burden remains undischarged. No benefit can be derived by the applicant from the fact that P.W.-2 (first informant) has been declared hostile. On the above premise, learned A.G.A contends that no good ground exists to enlarge the applicant on bail.

11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact since all the prosecution witnesses of fact have not yet been examined, therefore the innocence of the applicant cannot be inferred simply on the basis of the deposition of P.W.-2, nothing has emerged upto this stage on the basis of which false or malicious implication of applicant could be inferred, the submission urged by the learned A.G.A. could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, at this stage therefore irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case this Court finds that no new or good ground has been made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.

13. As a result, repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

14. It is accordingly rejected."

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since

06.05.2018. As such, he has undergone more than 7 years of incarceration. 10 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against applicant on 04.08.2018. The charges were framed against applicant by Court below, vide framing of charge order dated 13.05.2019. As per the charge sheet, there are as many as 13 prosecution witnesses nominated therein. However, up to this stage, only 7 prosecution witnesses have deposed before Court below. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the prosecution is not pursuing the trial diligently. On account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial, the liberty of applicant is being jeopardized. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, the learned counsel for applicant submits that right to speedy trial is now recognized as a fundamental right of an accused. Since on account of the indifferent attitude and conduct of prosecution, aforementioned fundamental right of applicant stands infringed, therefore, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 06.05.2018. As such, he has undergone more than 7 years of incarceration. Apart from above, since the deposition of the first informant and other important prosecution witnesses of fact have already been recorded before Court below, therefore, in that eventuality, in case, applicant is enlarged on bail then it cannot be said that applicant shall neither terrorize the witnesses nor shall hamper the course of trial. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that no good or sufficient ground now exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of above applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial .

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that applicant is the Jeth of deceased. As per the dying declaration of deceased, the role of pouring kerosene upon the deceased has been assigned to applicant. The death of deceased has occurred within 7 years of her marriage. As such, the death of deceased is a dowry death. Apart from above, the occurrence giving 11 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred in the matrimonial home of the deceased, of which the present applicant is also a resident. With reference to the provisions contained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the learned A.G.A. submits that since the death of deceased is a dowry death, therefore, the burden to dislodge the statutory presumption that it is not a dowry death is upon the applicant. However, up to this stage, no such material has emerged on record, on the basis of which, contrary to the said presumption can be drawn against applicant. With reference to the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the learned A.G.A. contends that there is no explanation on record with regard to the manner of occurrence. No opinion regarding acceptability/reliability of the dying declaration of deceased can be formed at this stage as it is only after the entire prosecution evidence has been laid by the prosecution that an opinion can be formed as to whether, the said dying declaration is reliable and acceptable and whether any corroboration of the same is required or not, therefore, at this interim stage, the dying declaration of the deceased has been treated as sacrosanct. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to the order sheet of the concerned Sessions Trial and with reference to the same, he submits that the mother of applicant is also a co-accused and repeatedly exemption application has been filed on behalf of the mother seeking exemption from appearing before Court below. There is nothing on record to show that any application under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused praying segregation of his trial. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. would thus submit that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. However, the learned A.G.A. submits that considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the role of applicant in committing the crime in question, interest of justice shall be served, in case, s positive direction is issued by this Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously on day to day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. In case, an adjournment/exemption is prayed for, the same shall be granted only on specific and recorded reasons.

8. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused, considering the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad 12 BAIL No. 30033 of 2025 Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, this Court finds that interest of justice shall better be served, in case, a positive direction is issued to Court below. Accordingly, Court below i.e. the concerned Sessions Judge dealing with Sessions trial No. 789 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin Tyagi), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kharkhaunda, District-Meerut is directed to proceed with the trial with all expedition on day to day basis. No exemption application/adjournment shall be allowed or granted by Court below except for specific and recorded reasons. In case, an adjournment is inevitable, the same shall be allowed but on cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the party claiming adjournment/exemption.

9. Court below shall further endevour to conclude the trial within a period of 3 months from today.

10. Matter shall re-appear for orders as fresh on 04.11.2025.

11. Office shall communicate this order to the Court concerned within a week from today. September 4, 2025 Vinay (Rajeev Misra,J.)