Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27136 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30937 of 2024 Applicant :- Sartaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Malviya,G.A.,Rishi Kesh Malviya Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Kuldeep Dubey, learned Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Amit Kumar Malviya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Sartaj, who is involved in Case Crime No. 67 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of deceased-Vano- lodged a first information report on 17.03.2024 against the applicant making allegations inter alia that marriage of his daughter with Sartaj (applicant) was solemnized on 23.08.2023 but Sartaj used to harras and beat her daughter making demand of motorcycle. He, in order to save his daughter, gave motorcycle to Sartaj, even then there was no change in his behaviour. Today Sartaj informed him that his daughter has died. On reaching his daughter's house, he find that her dead body is lying on ground in the house and her husband Sartaj has fled from the house. On account of non fulfilment of additional demand of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty-thousand), his daughter has been done to death. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant has been examined before the trial court as PW-1 on 23.01.2025 but he has been declared hostile, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 18.03.2024 having no criminal history to his credit may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that deceased died her unnatural death within seven months of her marriage, hence there shall be presumption of dowry death in the light of Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act. As per postmortem report of the deceased, she was having pregnancy of approx.14- 16 weeks and male foetus (weight 45 gm, lenght- 13.5 cm, CRL.-9.0 cm, H.C.-9.5 cm) was handed over to the accompanying police constable. PW-1 (complainant), in his examination-in-chief, has supported the prosecution case but on account of winning over the said witness from the side of accused, he has not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination. Lastly it is submitted that considering the gravity of offence, bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that on account of compromise, PW-1 did not support the prosecution case in his cross-examination. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that PW-1 has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, but he denied the prosecution case in his cross- examination. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra, (1996) 10 SCC 360 has also settled the law that if there are contradictions in the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of any prosecution witness, the conviction is also possible on the basis of examination-in-chief, if the same is of sterling quality and is being supported from other material on record and attending circumstances. 8. This Court is of the view that conclusion from the statement of any witness shall be drawn by the trial Court considering his/her statement in toto not in isolation. It is well settled that a man can tell a lie but record and circumstances do not. Since the allegation of the prosecution and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not effect the merits of the trial. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 11.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. 12. However, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad