HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30113 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. 2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No. 492 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Satendra Gond and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 61 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bansdih, District-Ballia during the pendency of trial. 3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant-Tarkeshwar Shah, who is father of the deceased- Shobha got a first information report lodged on 13.03.2024 against Satendra Gond, Shanti Devi and Shivmangal Gond, who are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively stating inter-alia that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the applicant on 15.05.2023 and in the said marriage, he has given sufficient dowry as per his capacity, however, after the said marriage, there was additional demand of motorcycle, fridge and a cooler. F.I.R. further alleges that on account of non- fulfillment of their additional demand, his daughter was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home. On 12.03.2024 at about 11:00 o'clock, the informant was informed that his daughter has committed suicide. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar, Sarvesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Satendra Gond .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation of alleged demand of dowry against the accused persons is wholly false. The applicant is a poor person, therefore, he had no capacity to make such demand. It is further submitted that since the deceased died by committing suicide herself, therefore, the applicant who has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 13.03.2024 may be enlarged on bail. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that before the trial court, statement of father, brother and bhabhi of the deceased has been recorded, in which they have supported the prosecution case, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that out of six prosecution witnesses of fact, statement of three prosecution witnesses, namely, Tarkeshwar Shah, Vikas Kumar Shah and Sangeeta have been recorded as PW- 1, PW-3 and PW-4 and the statement of two formal witnesses, namely, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Singh and Constable Avnish Mishra who was writer of the F.I.R. has also been recorded before the trial court and they have supported the prosecution case. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is not recording any finding on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses so that it may not affect the trial of the applicant. However there is no dispute that the trial of the applicant is proceeding and six prosecution witnesses have been testified, therefore, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I find no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7-Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. 8-However considering the detention period of the applicant, Superintendent of Police, Ballia is directed to ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statement on the same day without granting BAIL No. 30113 of 2025 2 any adjournment to either of the parties. 9-It is made clear that any observation made in this order is for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 10-Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Ballia and concerned trial court within three days' for necessary information and compliance. September 17, 2025 Saurabh BAIL No. 30113 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad