Veeroo Chhotu v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Veeroo @ Chhotu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No. 844 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52079 of 2023 (Veeroo @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits while placing para 6 of the affidavit that PW-1 Kailash the first informant was examined on 06.11.2023, PW-2 Nagendra Kumar was examined on 19.02.2024 and PW-4 Priyanka was examined on 15.04.2024 but they have not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present matter is false. Further, while placing supplementary affidavit dated 25.09.2024 it is submitted that Dr. Piyush Sahu the Nayab Tehsildar was examined as PW-5 before the trial court. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is still going on and has not yet concluded. It is submitted that as such the applicant be thus enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 25.11.2022.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in so far as the first bail application of the applicant is concerned, the same was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023. It is submitted that at the time of decision of first bail application the fact that PW-1 Kailash the first informant was examined and had not supported the prosecution case and had been declared hostile, was also considered. It is submitted that as of now there is no fresh and new ground. It is submitted that the trial in the matter is going on in which five witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that the bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023. The said order is extracted hereinunder: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I 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-Veeroo @ Chhotu seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.355 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 24.11.2022 by Kailash against the applicant and five other persons alleging therein that his daughter Sandhya was married to the applicant on 4.12.2021 in which he had given gifts and dowry more than his status. The accused persons were demanding a buffalo and Rs.2 lakh as dowry which was not fulfilled due to which they used to torture is daughter and on 23.11.2022 they have murdered his daughter.

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 there was demand of dowry either by the applicant or his family members from the deceased for ever. The deceased committed suicide and died as the cause of death opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of hanging. In the inquest, the officer conducting it did not find any bodily injury on the body of the deceased except for the ligature mark. The implication of the applicant is false as the trial in the matter has started in which Kailash, the first informant was examined as P.W.1 who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.11.2022.

6. Per contra 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 applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. The postmortem report shows six other contusions apart from ligature mark on the body of the deceased which are spread from the face to thigh. There is no explanation coming from the side of the applicant regarding injury of the deceased.

8. 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. The trial in the matter is going on. At the time of decision of the first bail application the fact that PW-1 the first informant was declared hostile, was considered. In the trial as per the records of the present matter five prosecution witnesses have been examined, it cannot be said that the trial is not proceeding. There is no fresh and new ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. However, since the trial is of the year 2023 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Veeroo @ Chhotu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No. 844 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52079 of 2023 (Veeroo @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits while placing para 6 of the affidavit that PW-1 Kailash the first informant was examined on 06.11.2023, PW-2 Nagendra Kumar was examined on 19.02.2024 and PW-4 Priyanka was examined on 15.04.2024 but they have not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present matter is false. Further, while placing supplementary affidavit dated 25.09.2024 it is submitted that Dr. Piyush Sahu the Nayab Tehsildar was examined as PW-5 before the trial court. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is still going on and has not yet concluded. It is submitted that as such the applicant be thus enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 25.11.2022.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in so far as the first bail application of the applicant is concerned, the same was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023. It is submitted that at the time of decision of first bail application the fact that PW-1 Kailash the first informant was examined and had not supported the prosecution case and had been declared hostile, was also considered. It is submitted that as of now there is no fresh and new ground. It is submitted that the trial in the matter is going on in which five witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that the bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023. The said order is extracted hereinunder: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I 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-Veeroo @ Chhotu seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.355 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 24.11.2022 by Kailash against the applicant and five other persons alleging therein that his daughter Sandhya was married to the applicant on 4.12.2021 in which he had given gifts and dowry more than his status. The accused persons were demanding a buffalo and Rs.2 lakh as dowry which was not fulfilled due to which they used to torture is daughter and on 23.11.2022 they have murdered his daughter.

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 there was demand of dowry either by the applicant or his family members from the deceased for ever. The deceased committed suicide and died as the cause of death opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of hanging. In the inquest, the officer conducting it did not find any bodily injury on the body of the deceased except for the ligature mark. The implication of the applicant is false as the trial in the matter has started in which Kailash, the first informant was examined as P.W.1 who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.11.2022.

6. Per contra 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 applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. The postmortem report shows six other contusions apart from ligature mark on the body of the deceased which are spread from the face to thigh. There is no explanation coming from the side of the applicant regarding injury of the deceased.

8. 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. The trial in the matter is going on. At the time of decision of the first bail application the fact that PW-1 the first informant was declared hostile, was considered. In the trial as per the records of the present matter five prosecution witnesses have been examined, it cannot be said that the trial is not proceeding. There is no fresh and new ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. However, since the trial is of the year 2023 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad