Ram Singh v. State of U.P.)., copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No

2. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Harendra Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Session Trial No.753 of 2022, Case Crime No.186 of 2022, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 307, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S.Seohara, District Bijnor.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 6.1.2023 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44764 of 2022.

5. This matter has been nominated to this Bench vide order dated 28.07.2025 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

6. Counter affidavit of the State and rejoinder affidavit to the same has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the nandoi of the first informant. It is further argued that co-accused Kolindar Singh @ Kolindra, the husband of the deceased has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in his second bail application vide order dated 25.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36557 of 2024, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application (page 122 of the paper book). It is further submitted that the bail of co-accused Ram Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased being a second bail application has been granted by the same coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45591 of 2024 (Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.)., copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application (page 133 of the paper book). The case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Ram Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased. The statement of the deceased Smt. Amesa was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she gave identical role to the mother-in-law, father-in-law, nandoi (Harendra) who is the present applicant. It is argued that looking to the fact that co- accused Ram Singh (father-in-law) has been granted bail, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 23.5.2022.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.1.2023. The said order reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2022, U/S 498-A, 304-B, 307, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sheohara, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution story, the applicant and the co-accused persons namely, husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law are stated to have subjected the deceased person to cruelty for a demand of dowry and ensuing the said demand, the applicant, who happens to be brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased alongwith other co-accused persons, is stated to have assaulted her with knife and later on are stated to have sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze leading to her death later on.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that applicant is brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased and lives 65 kms away from the scene of occurrence. Learned counsel has claimed alibi of the applicant as he was busy in the Haldi ceremony of his niece. Learned counsel has next stated that the said fact stands substantiated by the fact that one co-accused person, who is the wife of the applicant, has been exonerated by the police during investigation. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim herself out of rage, had tried to set herself ablaze and accidentally, she caught fire and thereby got burnt and succumbed to the burn injuries sustained. Learned counsel has next submitted that the dying declaration is tutored one and his name has been introduced later on. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are no allegations, whatsoever in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the dying declaration that the applicant had demanded any dowry from the deceased. It is further stated that it is alleged in the FIR that there are injuries inflicted by knife to the deceased person, which do not find substantiated by the post-mortem report or the injury report, which have been filed alongwith the affidavit.

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 23.5.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the dying declaration categorically indicates that the applicant was present at the time of occurrence alongwith father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person and the said dying declaration has been duly recorded in the form of questions and answers. Learned A.G.A. has also stated that the statement of the victim was recorded by the investigating officer, which also corroborates the allegations levelled in the FIR which tantamounts to dying declaration. Learned counsel has next stated that the statement before the investigating officer tantamounts to dying declaration. Had the dying declaration not been recorded under due provisions of law, then even the statement of the victim recorded before the investigating officer would have fallen within the category of dying declaration.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, the presence of dying declaration including the statement before the investigating officer and the injury report, post-mortem report, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the court below may proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

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. "

8. In the present matter, the statement of the deceased has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has assigned the role to the mother-in-law, father-in-law and nandoi of assault with knife and then sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. The postmortem examination of the deceased corroborates with the version of assault as stated by the victim/deceased. The said evidence is credible and clinching. It cannot be said that there is no circumstance emerging in the present matter which would show false implication of the applicant.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Harendra Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Session Trial No.753 of 2022, Case Crime No.186 of 2022, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 307, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S.Seohara, District Bijnor.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 6.1.2023 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44764 of 2022.

5. This matter has been nominated to this Bench vide order dated 28.07.2025 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

6. Counter affidavit of the State and rejoinder affidavit to the same has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the nandoi of the first informant. It is further argued that co-accused Kolindar Singh @ Kolindra, the husband of the deceased has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in his second bail application vide order dated 25.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36557 of 2024, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application (page 122 of the paper book). It is further submitted that the bail of co-accused Ram Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased being a second bail application has been granted by the same coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45591 of 2024 (Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.)., copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application (page 133 of the paper book). The case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Ram Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased. The statement of the deceased Smt. Amesa was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she gave identical role to the mother-in-law, father-in-law, nandoi (Harendra) who is the present applicant. It is argued that looking to the fact that co- accused Ram Singh (father-in-law) has been granted bail, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 23.5.2022.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.1.2023. The said order reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2022, U/S 498-A, 304-B, 307, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sheohara, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution story, the applicant and the co-accused persons namely, husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law are stated to have subjected the deceased person to cruelty for a demand of dowry and ensuing the said demand, the applicant, who happens to be brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased alongwith other co-accused persons, is stated to have assaulted her with knife and later on are stated to have sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze leading to her death later on.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that applicant is brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased and lives 65 kms away from the scene of occurrence. Learned counsel has claimed alibi of the applicant as he was busy in the Haldi ceremony of his niece. Learned counsel has next stated that the said fact stands substantiated by the fact that one co-accused person, who is the wife of the applicant, has been exonerated by the police during investigation. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim herself out of rage, had tried to set herself ablaze and accidentally, she caught fire and thereby got burnt and succumbed to the burn injuries sustained. Learned counsel has next submitted that the dying declaration is tutored one and his name has been introduced later on. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are no allegations, whatsoever in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the dying declaration that the applicant had demanded any dowry from the deceased. It is further stated that it is alleged in the FIR that there are injuries inflicted by knife to the deceased person, which do not find substantiated by the post-mortem report or the injury report, which have been filed alongwith the affidavit.

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 23.5.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the dying declaration categorically indicates that the applicant was present at the time of occurrence alongwith father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person and the said dying declaration has been duly recorded in the form of questions and answers. Learned A.G.A. has also stated that the statement of the victim was recorded by the investigating officer, which also corroborates the allegations levelled in the FIR which tantamounts to dying declaration. Learned counsel has next stated that the statement before the investigating officer tantamounts to dying declaration. Had the dying declaration not been recorded under due provisions of law, then even the statement of the victim recorded before the investigating officer would have fallen within the category of dying declaration.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, the presence of dying declaration including the statement before the investigating officer and the injury report, post-mortem report, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the court below may proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

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. "

8. In the present matter, the statement of the deceased has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has assigned the role to the mother-in-law, father-in-law and nandoi of assault with knife and then sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. The postmortem examination of the deceased corroborates with the version of assault as stated by the victim/deceased. The said evidence is credible and clinching. It cannot be said that there is no circumstance emerging in the present matter which would show false implication of the applicant.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad