Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18043 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10054 of 2024 Applicant :- Gulfam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Deepak Singh,Sandeep Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Srivastava,Pranshu Agrawal Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pal, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Chandan Srivastava, the learned counsel for the victim (husband of the deceased) and perused the records. 2. This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. 3. The first application No. 8182 of 2024 was dismissed as not pressed by means of an order dated 21.08.2024. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 31.03.2021 at 16:51 hours stating that the applicant was working as a carpenter in the house of the informant's brother. He demanded some money from the wife of the informant's brother for starting some business and when she declined, the applicant attacked her with a knife at about 02:20 p.m. on 31.03.2021. The victim was taken to Genesis Hospital and thereafter to Lohia Hospital, where she died at 03:30 p.m. The incident was witnessed by daughter of the deceased and a guard sitting outside the house had witnessed the applicant running away after the incident while brandishing a knife. The post mortem examination report mentions five incised wounds and a stabbed wound and the cause of death has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. 5. The trial court has already recorded statements of as many as seven prosecution witnesses. Copies of the statements of witnesses have been brought on record. Two daughters of the deceased have been examined as PW-2 & PW3, both of whom have witnessed the incident. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is a major discrepancy in the statement of PW-5, who is a neighbor of the victim. He had stated that he resides in a house adjacent to the house of the victim. He had heard some cry and thereafter both daughters of the deceased had come to his house, thereafter PW-5 had gone to the house of the victim where the incident had already taken place and except for the dead body, no person was present there. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the court to the passage of cross-examination of PW-5 wherein he stated that when daughters of the deceased had come to his house, a person carrying a stick had entered his house and this person was not the applicant. From the aforesaid statement, the learned counsel for the applicant has tried to draw an inference that some other person was also involved in commission of the incident and, therefore, the prosecution story implicating the applicant alone for commission of the offence become suspicious. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the informant has invited attention of the Court to the short counter affidavit filed by the husband of the deceased. Some print outs of photographs taken from CCTV camera installed at the house of the victim have been annexed with the counter affidavit which support the prosecution version. 8. Having perused the photographs annexed with the short counter affidavit and gone through the statements of the daughters of the deceased recorded by the trial court, I am of the view that the present case does not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court by enlarging the applicant on bail. The statement of a neighbor-PW-5 that some person carrying a stick had entered his house after the incident, does not disprove the aforesaid overwhelming direct evidence. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this second bail application is also rejected. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench