HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39036 of 2024 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashikant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15558 of 2024 (Sethy vs. State of U.P.). 4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sethy, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case No. 1815 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2023, under Section 323, 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial in the present matter has started in which the statement of Hukum Singh as P.W.-1, Veerpal as P.W.-2, Sohal Lal as P.W.-3 and Naresh Pal as P.W.-4 have been recorded. It is submitted that P.W.-2 Veerpal is the cousin brother of the deceased has stated that probably the deceased had fell from the roof and received injuries and died. It is submitted that as such the injuries received by the deceased are well explained by the prosecution. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 29.04.2023. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Singh, G.A., Santosh Kumar Pandey, Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sethy .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on merits. It is submitted that the trial in the matter is going on in which four witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. There is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application. 7. After having heard learned 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 09.05.2024, the same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The office vide its note dated 08.05.2024 has stated therein that in view of the order dated 24.04.2024 of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and in view of the Administrative order dated 14.12.2023 of Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice, the present matter has been placed before this Court. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sethy, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case No. 1815 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2023, under Section 323, 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun. 4. The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 28.04.2023 by Hukum Singh against the applicant and 06 other persons alleging therein that his sister Gudiya was married around 10 months back with the applicant in which he had given a lot of gifts and dowry but the accused persons were not happy with it and there was demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and a gold chain. Due to non fulfillment of dowry the accused persons used to physically & mentally torture his sister and then sprinkled petrol on her and tried to murder her. Later on 28.04.2023 at about 8.00 am he received an information that his sister has been pushed from the roof by the accused persons due to non fulfillment of dowry and has been murdered. The dead body of his sister is lying in the Government Hospital, Chandausi. 5. 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. While placing paragraph 34 of the affidavit it is argued that the applicant is not involved in the present case. The death is accidental death and not homicidal. It is argued that the deceased was taken to the hospital by her in-laws but she died. It is argued that co-accused Mohar Sri the mother-in-law and Kartar Singh the father-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.10.2023 and 22.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 42601 of 2023 and 49875 of 2023, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 39 and is in jail since 29.04.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within 10 months of marriage in her BAIL No. 39036 of 2024 2 matrimonial house. It is argued that the deceased was found to have received a lacerated wound on the skull with the fracture of temporal bone and an abrasion on the right knee joint and the cause of death was opined as coma due to antemortem head injury. It is argued that the death is unnatural in the matrimonial house. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within 10 months of marriage. The postmortem report shows two injuries on her body and the cause of death was opined as coma due to antemortem head injury. The case of the co-accused being mother-in-law and father-in-law is distinguishable with that of the applicant. No ground for bail is made out. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 8. The trial in the matter is going on in which four witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. There is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 10, 2025 AS Rathore BAIL No. 39036 of 2024 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad