High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33358 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6303 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. 2-By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Rajesh Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 143 of 2024 (Session Trial No. 704 of 2024), under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sikandra Rao, district Hathras seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
Legal Reasoning
3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that complainant Mukesh Kumar, who is father of the deceased Lalita, lodged a first information report of this case on 07.03.2024 for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant Rajesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Rajni and Ramveer Singh, who are husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and uncle-in-law of the deceased respectively making allegation inter alia that marriage of his daughter Lalita was solemnized on 29.11.2023, in which he had given sufÏcient dowry as per his capacity but since January, 2024, there was consistent demand of Rs. 2 lacs and a buffalo from the side of the accused persons. On account of non- fulfillment of the said demand, his daughter was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home. On 06.03.2024 at about 07:00 P.M., the applicant informed that his daughter has died. 4-Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Though the complainant in the first information report has made allegation of harassment and torture of his daughter due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry against the applicant but when he was examined before the trial Court, he did not support the prosecution case in his cross- examination. Thereafter, PW-2 Devendra Kumar, who is cousin of the deceased, was examined and he has also not supported the prosecution case, therefore, at the request of prosecution, he has been declared hostile. Hence, the applicant, who has been languishing in jail since 18.03.2024, may be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that examination-in-chief of PW-1 was recorded on 11.09.2024, in which he has fully supported the prosecution case and also proved the first information report, which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1. Thereafter, cross-examination of PW-1 was recorded on 30.01.2025 after about 4 months and 19 days, in which he has not supported the prosecution case. Since there was enough time between the examination-in-chief and cross- examination, therefore, PW-1 has been won over from the side of the accused persons. Lastly, it is submitted that the deceased died her unnatural death within short span of three months and seven days of her marriage in her matrimonial home. Under the facts and evidence on record, the presumption of dowry death under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act shall also be drawn against the applicant, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PW-1 has not been recorded on the same day whereas Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Yadav and Another Etc. Vs. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137 has settled the law giving directions that to avoid the possibility of influence over the prosecution witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination of any prosecution witness must be recorded on the same day but in the present case the said direction has not been followed. The Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra (1996) 10 SCC 360 has also settled the law that if there are contradiction in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of any prosecution witness, the conviction is also possible on the basis of examination-in-chief, if the same is of sterling quality and is being supported from other material on record and attending circumstances. The issue regarding the evidentiary value of examination-in-chief of such witnesses, who had turned hostile in their cross-examination, has been well considered and settled by the Apex Court in the case of Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, (2015) 2 SCC 662 by holding that merely for the reason that the witnesses have turned hostile in their cross- examination, the testimony in examination-in-chief cannot be outright discarded provided the same in examination-in-chief supporting (statement prosecution) is corroborated from the other evidence on record. In other words, if the court finds from the two different statements made by the same accused, only one of the two is believable, and what has been stated in the cross-examination is false, even if the witnesses have turned hostile, the conviction can be recorded believing the testimony given by such witnesses in the examination-in-chief. However, such evidence is required to be examined with great caution. 7-Since the allegation of the prosecution and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial Court meticulously, so that it may not affect the merits of the trial. However this Court is of the view that conclusion from the statement of any witness shall be drawn by the trial Court considering his/her statement in toto not in isolation. It is well settled that a man may tell lie but record and circumstances do not. 8-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 9-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 10-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 11-However, considering the detention period of the applicant, trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 12-Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance within three days. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad