77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3890 of 2023 v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, leaned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ram Naresh Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 326, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Badagaon, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48570 of 2020 (Ram Naresh Singh vs. State of U.P.).

5. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22552 of 2022 ( Ram Naresh Singh vs. State of U.P.).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial in the present matter is going on. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted while placing Annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated

30.04.2024 that co-accused Pradeep Kumar, Singh who is the husband of the deceased, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50911 of 2022 (Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.). It is further submitted that looking to the fact that the husband of the deceased has been granted bail, the applicant also deserves to be released on bail. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since

01.07.2020 and the trial is still going on.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first and second bail applications of the applicant have been rejected by detailed orders on merits by this Court. It is further submitted that even while rejecting the second bail of the applicant vide order dated 24.11.2022, this Court has expedited the trial. It is submitted that insofar as the role of the applicant is concerned, the same was considered by this Court particularly with regard to the dying declaration given by the deceased and then first bail application of the applicant was rejected. It is further submitted that there is no fresh and new ground on merits in the present matter and as such the bail application be rejected.

8. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present bail application is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2021. The said order reads as under :- "Heard Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P. C. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Ram Naresh Singh, seeking enlargement on bail involved in Case Crime No.251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 326, 506, 498A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station- Badagaon, District-Varanasi. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and is living separately for which his Aadhar Card has been placed before the Court. It is further argued that applicant is aged about 67 years and is old aged person. It is further argued that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the son of the applicant in the year 2011. The occurrence of the present case is dated 28.03.2020 after which a dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 29.03.2020 but she died after about three months i.e. on 09.06.2020 and later-on on

10.06.2020, the first information report was registered. It is further argued that although the dying declaration mentions about the applicant, the husband of the deceased, Jeth of the deceased and her Nand of pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire but in spite of the specific allegation in the dying declaration, the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is further argued that looking to the said fact that the dying declaration names the applicant whereas the first information report which was lodged by the brother of the deceased does not name the applicant as an accused, the said dying declaration is not trustworthy and should be discarded. It is further argued that deceased was being treated in the hospital and the entire affairs in the hospital were being managed by her in-laws including the applicant and even she was discharged on 01.06.2020 from the hospital and was brought to another hospital wherein she was taken by the family members of her husband and her husband which also finds reference in the first information report. Learned counsel for the applicant has then placed before the Court a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Waikhom Yaima Singh Vs. State of Manipur: (2011) 13 SCC, page 125 and has proceeded to argue that even there the Apex Court has held that if the accused is not named in the first information report after having been named in the dying declaration the same is not to be trusted and should be discarded. It is further argued that applicant is not having any criminal antecedents as stated in para no. 32 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.07.2020. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant has criminal antecedents of a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further argued that dying declaration of the deceased is very categorical in terms of the role assigned to the applicant and naming of the applicant is concerned wherein he has been named alongwith three other persons and has been assigned the role of pouring kerosene oil upon the deceased and setting her on fire as a result of which she died. He further argued that even the death certificate of the deceased states that she suffered from thermal burn injury which was 70 % on her body and later on, she died due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest. It is further argued that judgement as relied by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable inasmuch as the same relates to an oral dying declaration which was heard by a witness and then was informed to the complainant of the present case but in the present case a dying declaration was recorded which is at page no. 33 in which the role has been assigned to the applicant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the criminal history of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

9. The second bail application of the applicant was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 by which the trial was expedited. The said order reads as under :- "Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48570 of 2020 (Ram Naresh Singh vs. State of U.P.). This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ram Naresh Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Section 302, 326, 506, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Badagaon, District Varanasi. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing paragraph 21, 22 and 23 of the affidavit argued that the applicant is ill and is suffering from Asthama and other old age diseases and his treatment is not being done properly in jail. He states that an application was filed before the C.J.M. concerned on which an order was passed directing the jail authorities to provide treatment to the applicant but still proper treatment is not being provided to the applicant. It is further argued that in so far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned while placing paragraph 37 of the affidavit it is argued that in the said case trial is pending and charges have been framed on 29.10.2013 and the matter is pending at the stage of evidence. It is argued that criminal history is immaterial. It is further argued while placing paragraph 38 of the affidavit that the first informant of the present case namely Suraj Jyoti Singh has been examined as P.W.-1 in trial and in his statement there are certain contradictions which would go to show that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there was no demand of dowry. The applicant is in jail since 01.07.2020 and as such he may be released on bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application has been rejected on merits by this Court by a detailed order. It is argued that on two applications dated 14.03.2022 and 07.04.2022, the court concerned has directed the Jail Superintendent to provide effective treatment to the applicant as per the jail manual and as such it cannot be said that proper and effective treatment is not being provided to the applicant. It is argued that even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that there is no effective and proper treatment being provided to the applicant. It is further argued that in so far as the statement of P.W.-1 is concerned, he has corroborated the prosecution case. There are even other prosecution witnesses who are yet to be examined. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial and even otherwise there is no new ground pleaded and argued in the present second bail application. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application. In so far as the treatment of the applicant is concerned, the court below has directed the jail authorities to provide effective and proper treatment as per jail manual. The statement of P.W.-1 corroborates with that of the prosecution story and the appreciation of the same is a matter of trial. The other witnesses are yet to be examined. I do no find any new and good ground. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702, Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (decided on 04.02.2022) and the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No:- 8905 / 2022: Mukesh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another), subject to any legal impediment."

10. Insofar as the dying declaration is concerned, this Court while deciding the first bail application has considered the same and then decided the matter. The grant of bail to co-accused Pradeep Kumar Singh by another Bench of this Court is subsequent to the rejection of the first two bail applications of the applicant. Parity may have a persuasive value but cannot be binding on the court. Further the factum that two bail applications of the applicant have been rejected by this Court, do not reflect in the order granting bail to co-accused Pradeep Kumar Singh.

11. In view of the same, no ground exists to allow the present third bail application. The trial court is reminded the order dated 24.11.2022 of this court expediting the trial and is directed to comply the same diligently. The applicant is directed to file this order before the trial court within two weeks from today.

12. The third bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.)