Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141438 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16967 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I 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- Vinay Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, under section 498-A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti. 4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 21.8.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47544 of 2021. 5. The sole argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the trial, there are 16 witnesses and as of now only 5 witnesses have been examined. It is further submitted that Nayab Tehsildar is not appearing before the trial court to give his testimony despite the orders being passed three times by the trial court concerned for his appearance. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.8.2021, as such the trial will take a lot of time and Court may consider plea of bail of the applicant and direct his release. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 21.8.2023. In so far as the trial is concerned, the same is proceeding as on the own showing of the applicant, 5 witnesses have been examined. He shall take up the issue with the Superintendent of Police, Basti who shall ensure that the Nayab Tehsildar appears on the next date before the trial court and also the other witnesses appear without fail before the trial court to give their testimony. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is a second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2023. The said order reads as under:- "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Kali Charan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Pratap 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- Vinay Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, under section 498-A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti. 4. The F.I.R. of the present matter has been lodged on 25.08.2021 by Jhagaru against the applicant alleging therein that his daughter Ankita was married to the applicant two years back. Up to six month after marriage the relationship between the applicant and deceased was cordial after which the accused started torturing and beating his daughter. There was demand of dowry and money from her. On 25.08.2021, at about 10.30 A.M. he received an information on phone that his daughter has died. He reached there and found his daughter dead by receiving an injury on her neck. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggested from the post mortem report wherein the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body without any other mark of any injury. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is argued that the marriage between the applicant and deceased was a love marriage and the deceased had previously eloped with the applicant as she was in love with the applicant, subsequently, an agreement was entered into between the first informant and the applicant. Later on the deceased was got married with the applicant. It is argued that since the present marriage was love marriage there was no occasion for demand of dowry. It is argued that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.08.2021. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The applicant is the sole accused in the F.I.R. There is no reason stated by the applicant due to which the deceased would have committed suicide. It is argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death is unnatural in her matrimonial house and within seven years of marriage. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The burden to be discharged by the applicant regarding death of his wife in her matrimonial house is not at all convincing. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected." 8. The ground as now being pressed is delay in trial. The trial is proceeding in which 5 witnesses have been examined and in so far as Nayab Tehsildar is concerned, if despite repeated orders, he is not appearing before the trial court concerned, the trial court shall issue appropriate orders directing the District Magistrate concerned to attach his salary and funds till the time he appears and gives his testimony before the trial court concerned. The trial court shall also intimate the District Magistrate concerned regarding non-compliance of its order on which the District Magistrate concerned shall take up the matter at his end as to why the said officer is flouting the orders of the trial court. Further the Superintendent of Police concerned shall look into the matter that the witnesses appear before the trial court diligently and there is no delay in any manner in the appearance of the witnesses before the trial court. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the District Magistrate concerned, trial court concerned through District and Sessions Judge concerned and the Superintendent of Police concerned within one week. 11. Learned counsel for the State shall also communicate this order to the officer concerned for its compliance and necessary action within one week. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad