HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11621 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Shweta Nishad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. 3. This third bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Santosh Vishwakarma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 132 of 2021, Session Trial No. 530 of 2022, under Sections 304(B),498(A) IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Belghat, District- Gorakhpur. 4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34349 of 2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2023. 5. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30056 of 2024 was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 4.9.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that trial in the present matter has started in which the statement of Smt. Anjula Devi the first informant and mother of the deceased has been recorded as P.W.-1 on 12.10.2022 after which she moved an application dated 11.12.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that she be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shweta Nishad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santosh Vishwakarma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) summoned again as P.W.-1 for recording her statement again. It is submitted that the said application was allowed vide order dated 01.1.2025 by the trial court and then her statement was again recorded on 17.1.2025 as P.W.-1 and from perusal of cross- examination therein it would transpire that she stated that there was no demand of any dowry and her daughter used to always appreciate her husband and in-laws. It is submitted that the said witness has further stated that her daughter had stated that she was living happily in her matrimonial house and there was never any demand of dowry. It is submitted that thus the prosecution story does not get supported from perusal of cross-examination of the said witness. It is submitted further that Sonu Vishwakarma the maternal uncle of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.-2 who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that thus implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.10.2021 and two witnesses only have been examined till date and thus trial in the matter would take time and hence, the prayer for bail of the applicant be considered. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer for bail vehemently, submitted that although the second bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution but the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 07.8.2023. It is submitted that in so far as the first informant/Smt.Anjula Devi is concerned, she while being examined before the trial court on 12.10.2022 as P.W.-1 has fully supported the prosecution case. Subsequently she moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to summon her again for recording of her statement again and the reason therein given by her is that while giving her testimony earlier some important facts could not be told by her at that time which related to death of her daughter and thus it is important that she be summoned again and her statement again be recorded. On 17.1.2025 wherein in the examination-in-chief she supports the prosecution case but in the cross-examination she gives a different version. It is submitted that the said fact goes to show that there has been tempering with the said witness. It is submitted that there is no fresh and new ground BAIL No. 11621 of 2025 2 before this Court and even otherwise appreciating the statement of the witness is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage and it would not be proper to give any finding regarding the same in an application for bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S. 8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34349 of 2023. The said order reads as under:- "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Santosh Vishwakarma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 132 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Belghat, District Gorakhpur. 4. The FIR of the present matter was lodged on 07.09.2021 by Smt. Anjula Devi against the applicant and his family members alleging therein that her daughter Pooja @ Deepmala was married to the applicant on 15.06.2019. She had given gifts and dowry as per own status but her in-laws were not satisfied with it and were demanding dowry due to which her daughter used to trouble, torture and beaten by them. On 06.09.2021 in the night her daughter was done to death by the accused persons. She on getting information reached the place and found her daughter to be dead. 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 para 15 of the affidavit in support of the bail application it is argued that as a matter of fact the deceased fell down from stairs and she received head injury and died. It is argued that in the postmortem examination report, the deceased was found to have received single injury on her person BAIL No. 11621 of 2025 3 which was contused swelling over her head. The cause of death is coma as a result of antemortem injuries (head injury). It is argued that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the first informant Smt. Anjula Devi has been examined as PW-1. Copy of her statement has been placed before the Court which is annexure 10 of the affidavit. It is argued that in her cross examination, the said witness has stated that she is too poor and had got the marriage done in temple as she was not in a position to spend money in marriage. It is argued that the same would go to show that the allegation regarding demand of dowry is false. It is further argued that the father-in-law Ramanuj Vishwakarma and mother-in-law Smt. Anari Devi of the deceased have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 21.04.2022 and 22.02.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3916 of 2022 (Ramanuj Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P.) and 3589 of 2022 (Smt. Anari Devi Vs. State of U.P.). Copy of the said orders are annexed as annexure 8 to the affidavit in support of the bail application. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since 05.10.2021. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the trial in the matter is going on. The first informant/PW-1 has supported the prosecution version. The deceased received injury on her head which was the cause of death. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of her marriage which is unnatural. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. The trial in the present matter is going on in which the first informant has been examined as PW-1 wherein she has supported the prosecution story. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. BAIL No. 11621 of 2025 4 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, since the trial is of the year 2021 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same within two weeks, thereafter." 9. The second bail application was also rejected by this Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 4.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30056 of 2024. The said order reads as under:- "1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application despite the fact that there are two learned counsels appearing in the matter. Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State is present. 2. This is second bail application. The first bail application being Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 34349 of 2023 (Santosh Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2023. 3. Today despite the matter being taken up in the revised list, there is no representation from the side of the applicant to press this bail application. 4. The incident is of the year 2021. It appears that learned counsel for the applicant has lost interest in the matter. 5. In view of the above, the present bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution." 10. The ground as canvased is that the first informant on an application moved by her under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was summoned again and her statement was again recorded in which in cross- examination she does not support the prosecution case and thus it is submitted that implication of the applicant is without any credible evidence. In so far as the said fact is concerned the said witness was initially examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court on 12.10.2022 wherein she had fully supported the prosecution case. Subsequently BAIL No. 11621 of 2025 5 an application dated 11.12.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by her in which she stated that some important facts regarding death of her daughter could not be told by her during recording of her statement and thus it is important that she be summoned again and her statement be recorded again. The said application was allowed by the concerned trial court vide order dated 01.1.2025 on which she was summoned and her statement was recorded on 17.1.2025 as P.W.-1. In the examination-in-chief she fully supports the prosecution case and subsequently in the cross-examination she gives a different version. The same is for the trial court to appreciate it at the appropriate stage. The said conduct of the witness may give an impression that there has been tempering with her. 11. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. October 8, 2025 Naresh BAIL No. 11621 of 2025 6 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad