Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31889 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45900 of 2023 Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur 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 second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Tarun Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 220 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gangeeri, District Aligarh, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44294 of 2022. 4. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the informant who is father of the deceased has lodged an F.I.R. on 02.11.2021 against present applicant-Tarun Kumar and his family members, namely, Jagdish Prasad, Smt. Meera Devi, Ompal and Dinesh Kumar with the allegations inter- alia that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 14.05.2021 with the present applicant. In the said marriage, he had spent about Rs. 4,00,000/- but on account of less dowry, his daughter was being harassed and tortured by the accused persons in her matrimonial home and there was consistent demand of one Honda motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- as additional dowry and on non- fulfillment of the same, she was done to death. 5. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.01.2022, but till date, his trial has not been concluded, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the delay is not only on the part of the prosecution, but on the part of accused also. All the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined before the trial court. The deceased died her unnatural death within short span of six months of her marriage in her matrimonial home, hence, considering the gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that except the detention period of the applicant no other ground has been pressed by the counsel for the applicant. Since the trial of the applicant is proceeding and six prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court, therefore, in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. However, considering the detention period of the applicant, trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 10. Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh is directed to ensure the production of remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court, so that trial of the applicant may be concluded at the earliest. 11. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statements on the same date. 12. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh as well as concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad