Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20720 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3434 of 2025 Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Kashyap,Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2024, under Sections 302, 504 IPC, Police Station Jahanabad, District Pilibhit during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.05.2024 under Sections 307, 504 IPC against applicant and one another and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant about 12 years before and on 22.05.2024 at about 9.00 PM some dispute arose between husband and wife and thereafter applicant and his father i.e. co-accused Yashodanandan threw her from the terrace due to which she sustained serious injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 307, 504 IPC but after the death of the deceased i.e. wife of the applicant case was converted under Section 302 IPC. 5. He further submits, however, during investigation when before her death the statement of the wife of the applicant was recorded by the Investigating Officer then she stated that applicant threw her from the roof and similar statement was given by the daughter of the applicant but during trial when daughter of the applicant namely Sakshi was examined as PW-2 then she did not support the prosecution case. 6. He further submits, this fact suggests that Investigating Officer on his own recorded both the statements i.e. statement of the deceased and statement of Sakshi during investigation and no reliance can be placed on such testimony. 7. He further submits, actually it is a case of accidental death and accidentally deceased fell from the terrace and sustained injuries and subsequently died. He further submits, applicant was the person who admitted her in the hospital and this fact shows his bona fide. 8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 05.06.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and during investigation before her death when the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer then she categorically stated that applicant threw her from the terrace. 10. Learned AGA further submits, till date Investigating Officer could not be examined, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that Investigating Officer on his own taken down the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. 11. Learned AGA further submits, however, daughter of the applicant, who was eye witness during trial did not support the prosecution case but initially in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated against applicant and it appears, as applicant is her father, therefore, during trial under his pressure she did not disclose the correct facts, therefore, no benefit should be extended to the applicant on the ground that during trial she did not support the prosecution case, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. Applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation he threw her wife from the terrace due to which she sustained injuries and died. 14. From the record, it reflects, before her death deceased in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that applicant threw her from terrace. The statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is her dying declaration and at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve her statement. 15. Further, from the record, it also reflects, during investigation when the statement of the daughter of the applicant was recorded then she also stated that applicant threw the deceased from the terrace but it appears, during trial she did not support the prosecution case but considering the fact that she is daughter of the applicant, the argument advanced by learned AGA in this regard cannot be brushed aside at this stage. 16. Further, however, as per counsel for the applicant immediately after the incident applicant has taken the deceased to the hospital but from the record this fact could not be reflected. 17. Further, applicant is in jail only since 05.06.2024 and till date even statement of the Investigating Officer, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased could not be recorded before the trial court. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage. 20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad