HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10770 of 2024 AND CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10757 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The applicants seek enlargement on bail in FIR No.55 of 2024, under Section 498A, 304B, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh. 3. The FIR in question was lodged alleging that daughter of the informant was married to one Gaurav Singh, who is son and brother of present applicants, around five years ago and they were blessed with a son aged Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anamika Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, Mohd. Salman, Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anamika Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sheela Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Lucky Singh@ Praveen Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko .....Opposite Party(s) about 3 years. On 09.03.2024, the son-in-law burned the daughter of the informant to death and all the other co-accused including the applicants had exhorted the son-in-law to commit the offence. 4. In the present case, as per the counter affidavit, a dying declaration was recorded on 12.03.2024 at the hospital in which the deceased was admitted prior to death, of which a video was also made. The analysis of the video was recorded in the case diary to the effect that the deceased before her death has stated that on the date of the incident, the mother-in-law caught hold of her hair and collided her head against a wall and thereafter, her husband sprinkled petrol and thereafter, her brother-in-law set her at fire after lighting the matchstick. The cause of death is septicemia on account of ante mortem burn injuries. 5. In the light of the said, it is argued that the analysis drawn from the case diary is distinct from the case diary which has been filed alongwith the rejoinder affidavit. It is further argued that the applicants are in custody since 27.08.2024 having no criminal antecedents. It is, thus, prayed that the applicants may be released on bail. 6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, opposes the bail application by arguing that very heinous offence was committed by the accused including the applicants who were present there. 7. Considering the gruesome nature of offence committed by the applicants, no good ground for bail is made out. Present bail applications are accordingly rejected. 8. However, direction is issued to the trial Court concerned for recording of the fact witnesses with all expedition, preferably within a period of four months from today. 9. Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh is directed to ensure that the fact witnesses are produced for recording of their statement. 10. The applicants would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording of the fact witnesses or after four months, whichever is earlier. 11. Learned AGA is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court BAIL No. 10770 of 2024 2 concerned as well as Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh for compliance. October 8, 2025 nishant BAIL No. 10770 of 2024 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench