Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22515 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37124 of 2024 Applicant :- Abhinav @ Aksah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in case crime No. 244 of 2021, under Sections 498- A, 304B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2023, which is reproduced as below:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 244 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The applicant is husband of deceased and their marriage has taken place about two years prior to the incident. In the first information report, there is no such specific allegation that what articles were being demanded in dowry. As per postmortem report, except ligature mark, there is no other injury on the body of deceased and cause of death is stated ante-mortem injury. Learned counsel submitted that the mere fact that hyoid bone of deceased was shown fractured, it cannot be held that deceased has suffered homicidal death. Further, at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was not present at the spot and in fact he was working in Gujarat since before the incident. In this connection learned counsel has referred the observation made in case diary, wherein it was mentioned that the informer has told the police that applicant/accused was residing at some other place since before the incident. It was also submitted that during trial, the informant has already been examined before the trial Court, wherein he has not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. The informant has clearly stated that the accused/applicant was not present at the spot. The statement of concerned doctor recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also referred wherein he has inter alia stated that deceased has suffered death due to ante-mortem injury. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since16.02.2022 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is husband of deceased and that deceased has suffered unnatural death within two years of her marriage. It was pointed out that in postmortem report, the hyoid bone of deceased was shown fractured, which indicates that deceased has suffered homicidal death and that applicant/accused has not offered any satisfactory explanation as to how his wife has suffered death. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and the fact that the hyoid bone of deceased was shown fractured and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Abhinav @ Akash is hereby rejected." 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is husband of deceased. It was submitted that at the time of incident, applicant was not present at the spot and thus, he can not explain as to how the deceased has died due to strangulation. During the trial, informant has also accepted that at the time of incident applicant was not present at the spot. The applicant is in jail since16.02.2022 and that trial of the case would take sufficient long time. Learned counsel has also referred a case of Manharan Rajwade Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024, Law Suit (SC) 646 and submitted that neither there is eye-witness of incident nor there is evidence of last seen and thus, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail 5. Learned A.G.A. and has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased has died of strangulation within two years of her marriage and her hyoid bone has been shown fractured. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. It is apparent from the record that applicant is husband of deceased and that deceased has suffered death due to strangulation within two years of her marriage. The hyoid bone of deceased was shown fractured. Whether accused was present or not at the spot is a question of fact and evidence is yet to be appreciated by the Trial Court. The first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits. No new ground is made out for entertaining this second bail application. 8. Considering the entire facts, no case for bail is made out. The second bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected. 9. However, in view of period of detention of applicant, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same, as early as possible, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad