Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66774 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1891 of 2025 Applicant :- Noorjahan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijeet Singh,Mohd Javed Akhter,Rajesh Pathik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first one was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40007 of 2022. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.141 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the instant second bail application on the following new grounds:- (i) At the time of dismissing the first bail application of the applicant, this Court had directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of one year and about more than two years have passed since then. (ii) The dying declaration cannot be taken into account as it was recorded by a Tehsildar and he could have easily been won over by the informant. (iii) Certain inconsistencies have been put up in the statement of the witnesses inter-se and there are contradictions, on the basis of which the applicant is entitled for bail. (iv) The doctor who had conducted the autopsy of the victim has stated that he cannot opine about the fact whether the victim was in a fit state to depose or not. (v) The applicant, being a lady, is languishing in jail since 22.07.2021, as such, the period of incarceration comes out marginally less than four years and her fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that already four witnesses have been examined and the trial is moving on. The applicant is nominated in the dying declaration of the victim. All the body of the victim got burnt in the said incident, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is dying declaration of the deceased which points towards the applicant to have caused the said offence of setting the deceased person afire coupled with the fact that already certain witnesses have been examined and the said inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses cannot be taken into account at this stage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad