Jairam Kharwar v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This third bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Jairam Kharwar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Session Trial No.283 of 2021 (State vs. Jairam and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Tarkulwa, District- Deoria.

4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7635 of 2022 was dismissed in non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2022.

5. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28887 of 2022 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the trial all the witnesses of fact have been examined and as a matter of fact, Mohan Kharwar was examined as P.W.-8 who is the father of the deceased who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that since 2 BAIL No. 42086 of 2024 all the witnesses of fact have been examined there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence. It is submitted that thus the prayer for bail be allowed and the applicant be released on bail.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the second bail of the applicant was decided by this Court vide order dated

09.5.2024 on merits. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on and is at an advanced stage in which 07 prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and as such merely P.W.-8 the father of the deceased not supporting the prosecution case cannot render the entire prosecution story false. It is submitted that as such no ground for bail in the present matter is made out.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present bail is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 09.5.2022. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 09.5.2024 on merits. The same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, 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 Jairam Kharwar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Session Trial No. 283/2021, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7635 of 2022 (Jairam Kharwar Vs. State of U.P.).

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 05.03.2021 by Pramod Kharwar 3 BAIL No. 42086 of 2024 against the applicant and Savitri Devi alleging therein that his sister C.V. Devi was married with Jairam on 07.05.2015. The co-accused persons used to beat her for dowry and there was a demand of a motorcycle. In between she informed her family members about the demand and torture. On 02.03.2021 he received an information that the accused persons have assaulted his sister and has kept her on the roof from where she fell down and died. He then went there and found his sister to be seriously injured and took her to various hospitals for treatment but she died.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation regarding demand of a motorcycle is false and concocted. It is submitted that the deceased was married to the applicant around six years back. It is further submitted that the deceased died due to fell from the roof which was an accident. It is submitted that the applicant is thus released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 10.03.2021.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. It is submitted that even in the inquest there is a version noted that the deceased was assaulted and then kept on the roof from where she fell down. The postmortem examination report corroborates with the prosecution story. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that as such release of the applicant at this stage it would not be in the fitness of things.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. The trial in the present is going on in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Release of the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect on the trial. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 4 BAIL No. 42086 of 2024

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."

9. The trial is at an advanced stage. Merely one witness not supporting the prosecution case may not render the entire prosecution case untrustworthy.

10. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The third bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., subject to any legal impediment. September 10, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This third bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Jairam Kharwar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Session Trial No.283 of 2021 (State vs. Jairam and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Tarkulwa, District- Deoria.

4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7635 of 2022 was dismissed in non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2022.

5. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28887 of 2022 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the trial all the witnesses of fact have been examined and as a matter of fact, Mohan Kharwar was examined as P.W.-8 who is the father of the deceased who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that since 2 BAIL No. 42086 of 2024 all the witnesses of fact have been examined there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence. It is submitted that thus the prayer for bail be allowed and the applicant be released on bail.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the second bail of the applicant was decided by this Court vide order dated

09.5.2024 on merits. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on and is at an advanced stage in which 07 prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and as such merely P.W.-8 the father of the deceased not supporting the prosecution case cannot render the entire prosecution story false. It is submitted that as such no ground for bail in the present matter is made out.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present bail is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 09.5.2022. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 09.5.2024 on merits. The same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, 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 Jairam Kharwar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Session Trial No. 283/2021, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7635 of 2022 (Jairam Kharwar Vs. State of U.P.).

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 05.03.2021 by Pramod Kharwar 3 BAIL No. 42086 of 2024 against the applicant and Savitri Devi alleging therein that his sister C.V. Devi was married with Jairam on 07.05.2015. The co-accused persons used to beat her for dowry and there was a demand of a motorcycle. In between she informed her family members about the demand and torture. On 02.03.2021 he received an information that the accused persons have assaulted his sister and has kept her on the roof from where she fell down and died. He then went there and found his sister to be seriously injured and took her to various hospitals for treatment but she died.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation regarding demand of a motorcycle is false and concocted. It is submitted that the deceased was married to the applicant around six years back. It is further submitted that the deceased died due to fell from the roof which was an accident. It is submitted that the applicant is thus released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 10.03.2021.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. It is submitted that even in the inquest there is a version noted that the deceased was assaulted and then kept on the roof from where she fell down. The postmortem examination report corroborates with the prosecution story. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that as such release of the applicant at this stage it would not be in the fitness of things.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. The trial in the present is going on in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Release of the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect on the trial. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 4 BAIL No. 42086 of 2024

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."

9. The trial is at an advanced stage. Merely one witness not supporting the prosecution case may not render the entire prosecution case untrustworthy.

10. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The third bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., subject to any legal impediment. September 10, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad