Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12286 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30167 of 2023 Applicant :- Akash Modanwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2-By means of this third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Akash Modanwal who is involved in Case Crime No. 119 of 2020, under sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sonauli, District- Maharajganj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-First and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 16.7.2021 and 15.2.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21691 of 2021 and 14532 of 2022. 4- The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that there are several contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Referring the statement of PW-10 Ranvijay Singh, who was the Investigating OfÏcer of this case, it is submitted that he in his statement has stated inter-alia that on the day of incident, the deceased had send a whats app message but neither he has collected the said phone number nor the said evidence. Relying on the said part of the statement of PW-10, much emphasis has been given by contending that the allegation of the prosecution that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to torture is false. It also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.6.2020 but his trial has not yet been concluded, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the said submissions by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the First Information Report and referring the statement of PW1 Rambabu Gupta, who is the father of the deceased he points out that PW-1 has fully supported the prosecution case with specific averment that on 18.6.2020 the deceased before her death has made a whats app call and requested to get her back from her matrimonial home, otherwise she will be killed. He also placed reliance upon the recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 INC 909, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held if trial is proceeding, the bail should not be granted in heinous offences and Edakkandi Dineshan and others vs. State of Kerala passed in Criminal Appeal No 118 of 2013, 2023 LL (SC) 25, wherein it has been held the benefit of defective investigation cannot be extended to the accused in a heinous offence, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that ten prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and all the witnesses of fact have supported the prosecution case and they have not been turned hostile. It is well settled principle that any irregularity or illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case. This Court is of the view that conclusion from the statement of any witness shall be drawn considering his/her statement in toto not in isolation. It is well settled that the minor discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution should not be discarded. Since the allegation of the prosecution and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not effect the merits of the trial. 7-Considering the gravity of offence and severity of punishment, stage of trial as noted above as well as in the light of recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9-It is made clear that any observation made in this order is for the limited purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 10-However considering the detention period of the applicant, Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj is directed to ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court, so that the trial of the applicant may be concluded at earliest. 11-The concerned trial court is directed that on appearance of the prosecution witnesses, their statement shall be recorded on the same day without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 12-Copy of this order be communicated to Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj as well as concerned trial court within a week for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Faridul Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad