Ravindra v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Javed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ravindra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad.

4. This is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 14.3.2022 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.51120 of 2021. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44576 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant Ram Singh although supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but during cross-examination he has given a different version. He has placed the statement of the said witness which is annexure no.5 to the affidavit to buttress the same. Looking to the statement of the first informant and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 5.1.2021 and the trial is still pending and will take time, the present bail application be thus allowed.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first informant appeared before the trial court on 12.7.2024 and his examination-in-chief was recorded wherein he has supported the prosecution case but subsequently on 7.10.2024 which is after about 3 months in his cross-examination, he gave a different version, the same would go to show that there has been tampering of the said witness. Further the appreciation of evidence of the said witness is for the trial court to do in the trial. It is further submitted that vide order dated 9.3.2022 the trial court has framed alternative charge under Section 302 IPC. There is no fresh and new ground argued. The bail application of the applicant be rejected.

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 this Court vide order dated 14.3.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ravindra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Manisha but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegation in the first information report regarding torture and harassment of the deceased after the marriage is false and incorrect as in the postmortem examination report the doctor has not found any other bodily injury except for a single ligature mark. The cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging which is suggestive of the deceased committing suicide. It is argued that the allegations in the first information report are totally false and concocted.The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 and is in jail since 05.01.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of the deceased has taken place within 08 months of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 26.04.2020 and the occurrence in the present case is of 06.12.2020 which is within 08 months of the date of marriage. There is no explanation whatsoever being tendered from the side of the applicant as to how his wife has died in her matrimonial house. 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."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024, the said order reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Javed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, Ravindra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51120 of 2021 (Ravindra vs. State of U.P.).

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.01.2021 and the trial is still going on in which only one witness has been examined. It is further submitted that looking to the stage of trial and the fact that there are sixteen witnesses in all to be examined, the trial will take a lot of time. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, as such, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2022 . The said order reads as under: "Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ravindra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Manisha but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegation in the first information report regarding torture and harassment of the deceased after the marriage is false and incorrect as in the postmortem examination report the doctor has not found any other bodily injury except for a single ligature mark. The cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging which is suggestive of the deceased committing suicide. It is argued that the allegations in the first information report are totally false and concocted.The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 and is in jail since 05.01.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of the deceased has taken place within 08 months of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 26.04.2020 and the occurrence in the present case is of 06.12.2020 which is within 08 months of the date of marriage. There is no explanation whatsoever being tendered from the side of the applicant as to how his wife has died in her matrimonial house. 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."

7. The trial in the matter is going in which statement of PW-1 is being recorded and the cross examination is continuing since long. No ground for bail exists.

8. The second bail application is accordingly, rejected."

9. The ground in the present bail application regarding first informant giving different version in his cross-examination is concerned, the said witness appeared before the trial court on 12.7.2024 on which date his examination-in-chief was recorded wherein he supported the prosecution case. Subsequently on 7.10.2024 he in his cross-examination has given different version which is after about 3 months of the incident, the same would go to show that there has been tampering with evidence.

10. 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 :- 26.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Javed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ravindra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad.

4. This is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 14.3.2022 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.51120 of 2021. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44576 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant Ram Singh although supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but during cross-examination he has given a different version. He has placed the statement of the said witness which is annexure no.5 to the affidavit to buttress the same. Looking to the statement of the first informant and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 5.1.2021 and the trial is still pending and will take time, the present bail application be thus allowed.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first informant appeared before the trial court on 12.7.2024 and his examination-in-chief was recorded wherein he has supported the prosecution case but subsequently on 7.10.2024 which is after about 3 months in his cross-examination, he gave a different version, the same would go to show that there has been tampering of the said witness. Further the appreciation of evidence of the said witness is for the trial court to do in the trial. It is further submitted that vide order dated 9.3.2022 the trial court has framed alternative charge under Section 302 IPC. There is no fresh and new ground argued. The bail application of the applicant be rejected.

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 this Court vide order dated 14.3.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ravindra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Manisha but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegation in the first information report regarding torture and harassment of the deceased after the marriage is false and incorrect as in the postmortem examination report the doctor has not found any other bodily injury except for a single ligature mark. The cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging which is suggestive of the deceased committing suicide. It is argued that the allegations in the first information report are totally false and concocted.The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 and is in jail since 05.01.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of the deceased has taken place within 08 months of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 26.04.2020 and the occurrence in the present case is of 06.12.2020 which is within 08 months of the date of marriage. There is no explanation whatsoever being tendered from the side of the applicant as to how his wife has died in her matrimonial house. 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."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024, the said order reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Javed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, Ravindra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51120 of 2021 (Ravindra vs. State of U.P.).

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.01.2021 and the trial is still going on in which only one witness has been examined. It is further submitted that looking to the stage of trial and the fact that there are sixteen witnesses in all to be examined, the trial will take a lot of time. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, as such, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2022 . The said order reads as under: "Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ravindra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 770 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Manisha but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegation in the first information report regarding torture and harassment of the deceased after the marriage is false and incorrect as in the postmortem examination report the doctor has not found any other bodily injury except for a single ligature mark. The cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging which is suggestive of the deceased committing suicide. It is argued that the allegations in the first information report are totally false and concocted.The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 and is in jail since 05.01.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of the deceased has taken place within 08 months of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 26.04.2020 and the occurrence in the present case is of 06.12.2020 which is within 08 months of the date of marriage. There is no explanation whatsoever being tendered from the side of the applicant as to how his wife has died in her matrimonial house. 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."

7. The trial in the matter is going in which statement of PW-1 is being recorded and the cross examination is continuing since long. No ground for bail exists.

8. The second bail application is accordingly, rejected."

9. The ground in the present bail application regarding first informant giving different version in his cross-examination is concerned, the said witness appeared before the trial court on 12.7.2024 on which date his examination-in-chief was recorded wherein he supported the prosecution case. Subsequently on 7.10.2024 he in his cross-examination has given different version which is after about 3 months of the incident, the same would go to show that there has been tampering with evidence.

10. 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 :- 26.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad