Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32383 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2221 of 2025 Applicant :- Vineet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Vipul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard Mr. Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Kamal Kumar, learned Brief Holder representing the State and Mr. Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant. 2-By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Vineet, who is involved in Case Crime No. 124 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Rajabpur, district Amroha seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Manoj Kumar, who is father of Tanishka (deceased) lodged an F.I.R. on 10.6.2022 for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Vineet Kumar (present applicant), Jagpal, Smt. Geeta, Nishu and Gulshan, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister- in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively making allegations inter-alia of harassment and torture of his daughter by the accused persons, adopting different modus-operandi, in her matrimonial home on account of non-fulfilment of their additional demand of bolero car and bullet motorcycle in dowry. F.I.R. also alleges that on account of non-fulfilment of their demand of dowry, his daughter was done to death on 10.06.2022. 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. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.06.2022 but till date, his trial has not been concluded, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions, he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of In re - Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3596. No other point has been pressed. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant/ complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the deceased died her unnatural death on 10.06.2022 in her matrimonial home within two years of her marriage solemnized on 27.12.2020. In the post mortem report of the deceased, six injuries in the nature of contusion and abraded contusion were found on different part of her body, which itself indicate that it is a case of extreme cruelty. He further pointed out that viscera was also preserved and the same was sent to FSL, in which "organochloro insecticides poison" has been found. The prosecution witnesses who have been examined till date before the trial Court have supported the prosecution case. Under the facts and evidence on record, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act shall also be drawn against the applicant. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479 and 'X' vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 by contending that since the offence is heinous in nature and trial of the applicant is in progress, 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 vide order dated 22.01.2025 of this Court, a report was called for from the concerned Presiding Officer/trial Court with regard to present status of trial of the applicant, whereupon the trial Court submitted its report dated 03.02.2025, which is on record, mentioning therein that now only three prosecution witnesses are remained to be examined and, as such, it is clear that trial of the applicant is at the advance stage. The applicant being husband of the deceased was not only responsible for the safety and welfare of his wife, but also under heavy onus to explain her unnatural death, which took place in his own house. There is no plausible explanation of injuries found on the body of the deceased. In viscera report "organochloro insecticides poison" has been found. The offence is heinous in nature. 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. So far as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of In re - Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons (supra) is concerned, I find that there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court but the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of this case. This Court is of the view that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. 7-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, severity of punishment, stage of trial as indicated above and other attending circumstances, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9-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. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad