Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128105 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19762 of 2024 Applicant :- Sonu @ Sonvir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavya Sahai,Rakesh Kumar Verma,Ramendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankit Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Uma Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sonu Alias Sonvir, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.22 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, registered at P.S. Kirawali, District Agra. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 11.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49009 of 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing supplementary affidavit dated 10.10.2024 has submitted that in the trial two more witnesses namely Smt. Vimla Devi (P.W.2) and Gaya Prasad (P.W.3) have been examined. The said statements have been placed before the Court. It is submitted while placing statement of P.W.2 that she is the grandmother of the deceased and has stated that the marriage of her granddaughter was solemnized with Durgesh Singh who is the elder brother of the applicant and his elder brother was died due to electric shock after which she was married with him. It is further argued that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.2.2023. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the present bail application is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 11.12.2023. The appreciation of the statement of witnesses cannot be done at this stage and a finding cannot be recorded. It is submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhatishgarh : (2007) 11 SCC 195 has held that nature and gravity of the offence and its impact on the society has to be considered and recording finding on credibility and evidential value of witnesses at the stage of bail, is not proper. It is further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab : 2025 INSC 634 has held that gravity of offence has to be looked into even in matters under Section 306 IPC. Looking to the nature of the evidence, gravity of evidence, the fact that the present bail application is the second bail application and further that the trial in the matter is going on and appreciation of evidence of the witnesses recorded in the trial is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. The present bail application of the applicant be rejected. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present bail application is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 11.12.2023 passed by this Court. The gravity of offence, the fact that trial is under progress and further that appreciation of evidence of the witnesses recorded in the trial at this stage is not proper. 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. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad