Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14644 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55435 of 2023 Applicant :- Guddu @ Ratnesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Karan Nath,Pratibha Vohra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anjali,G.A.,Pramod Kumar Singh,Shashi Kant Pandey Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Jai Karan Nath, Ms. Pratibha Vohra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Anjali, learned counsel for the first informant and 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 Guddu @ Ratnesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal. 4. The present FIR was lodged on 24.04.2023 by Jagdish Maurya against the applicant, Santosh and Smt. Shanti with the allegation that his daughter Rubi Maurya was married around two years back with the applicant Guddu @ Ratnesh in which he had given lot of gifts and dowry but her-in-laws were not satisfied with it and started demanding a bullet motorcycle whereas he had given Apache motorcycle in dowry and due to less dowry, they used to mentally and physically torture her. He consoled them many times but they did not mend their ways. His daughter told him many times but they did not control their habit. On 24.04.2023 at about 01:00 pm he received an information from the side of his son-in- law that his daughter has died. He along with his family members immediately went there where he found his daughter who was murdered by some poisonous substance. The accused persons have murdered her due to non-fulfillment of dowry. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that Smt. Shanti the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26813 of 2023 (Smt. Shanti Vs. State of U.P.), further co-accused Sarvesh @ Santosh the devar of the deceased has also been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 05.07.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 29346 of 2023 (Sarvesh @ Santosh Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 9 respectively to the affidavit. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined in which the first informant/PW-1 although supported the prosecution case while given his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination he stated that the accused persons did not give any poisonous substance to his daughter for demand of dowry, copy of the statement of PW-1 has been placed before the Court which is annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 05.04.2024. It is further submitted that the viscera report dated 27.07.2023 of the viscera of the deceased goes to show that Carbamate Insecticide poison was found in it. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. It is further submitted while placing another supplementary affidavit dated 16.05.2024 that Smt. Bhoori wife of Jagdish/the first informant/PW-1 was examined as PW-2 before the trial court who did not support the prosecution story and has been declared hostile, Gyan Prakash the son-in-law of PW-1/Jagdish was examined as PW-3 who is a witness of inquest, did not support the prosecution case. While placing supplementary affidavit dated 25.11.2024 it is submitted that Pramod Kumar the son of Jagdish/PW-1 was examined as PW-4 who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.04.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the first informant did not dispute the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within two years of marriage. The death is unnatural. It is submitted that the cause of death is due to some poisonous. It is submitted that the first informant has supported the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief but later gives a different version in his cross-examination which has to be considered by the trial court. 8. 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 within two years of marriage in her matrimonial house and the death is unnatural. There is an allegation of demand of dowry by the applicant and co-accused persons. The postmortem examination report of the deceased shows nail marks (multiple) present on left side neck and left side cheek in an area of 15cm x 7cm but the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved which was found to contain poison. The first informant/PW-1 has supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief but later on gives different version. The appreciation of the statement of the first informant/PW-1 has to be done by the trial court at the appropriate stage in the trial. The injuries received by the deceased prima facie show the struggle and are consistent with the prosecution story of administering her poison. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail, the bail application is thus rejected. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad