Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113866 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5241 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Yadav,Nigamendra Shukla,Om Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3497 of 202. By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant- Ajeet Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No.220 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that four prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. From the statement of prosecution witnesses, an inference can be drawn that applicant took the deceased to the hospital for her treatment, therefore, considering his bona fide conduct, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 17.02.2021 may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief as well as cross examination. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that all the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined before the trial court and statement of only formal witnesses are remaining. From the statement of prosecution witnesses, who have been examined before the trial court, I also find that they have clearly stated inter- alia that deceased was subjected to harassment and torture in her matrimonial home due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court is not scrutinizing the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously so that it may not affect the trial of the applicant. I also find that the trial of the applicant is also proceeding. The offence is heinous in nature. Hence, in the light of judgement of Hon'ble 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 enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected. However, considering the detention period of the applicant, it is directed that Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur shall ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court so that the trial of the applicant may be concluded at the earliest. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statement on the same date without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur within three days for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad