HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5232 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sen, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Alok Sharma, learned AGA for State. 2. This is third bail application filed by applicant-Manoj in Case Crime No. 481 of 2022 (Session Trial No. 365 of 2022), under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. First bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.05 .2024 and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter: "7. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal background and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e 'bail is rule and jail is exception' as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar vs State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of Jharkhand vs Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Sen Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manoj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP(Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors : Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023), therefore, I am of considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following grounds:- (a) Applicant before this Court is husband of deceased, who died due to injury within about five years of her marriage. (b) Court takes note of nature of occurrence and nature of injury and at this stage a definite observation could not be made that it was a case of suicide though Court takes note that at this stage there is no charge under Section 302 IPC. 8. In view of above, the application is rejected. However, considering that applicant is in jail for about two years and five years and trial is not proceeding, therefore, Trial Court concerned is directed to proceed for expeditious disposal of trial and in case it is not progressed substantially within ten months from today, the applicant will have liberty to approach this Court or Trial Court concerned, as advised, alongwith status of trial. 9. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps." 4. Second bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.09.2025 and the order is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sen, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Upendra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application was adjourned on 08.05.2025, 27.05.2025 and today i.e. 18.09.2025, it is finally decided after five months. 3. In the trial the opportunity to cross-examination of PW-1 was closed on 21.05.2025. Later on, vide order dated 27.05.2025, on condition, permission was granted to cross-examine of prosecution witness no.1. Thereafter, on 16.09.2025 cross-examination of PW-1 was partially done. However, till date his cross-examination has not concluded probably on the ground that he has not appeared though there is no specific reference in the order sheet annexed alongwith this application. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note that applicant is in jail since 23.12.2021 i.e. three years and about 9 months, therefore, while disposing of this application it is directed that the applicant will take all endeavor to conclude cross examination of PW-1 a relevant witness expeditiously. BAIL No. 5232 of 2026 2 5. The concerned Superintendent of Police is also directed that he will ensure the presence of PW-1. If any coercive measures is taken by the learned Trial Court. The Court also takes note that initially 22 witnesses was proposed by the prosecution, however, now the prosecution wants to examine only 11 witnesses. 6. Applicant will have an opportunity to file fresh bail application after the period of three months alongwith the status of the trial. 7. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps." 5. According to status report initially 22 prosecution witnesses were proposed and later on prosecution proposed only 16 witnesses to be examined, out of which testimony of 4 witnesses have already been completed, therefore, trial is proceeding. The applicant is in jail since 23.12.2021, i.e., for about four years and four months. 6. As per post mortem report cause of death is ante mortem firearm injuries, therefore, it may be a case that in case of conviction applicant be awarded maximum punishment of life imprisonment as well as Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand vs. State of U.P. and another, 2026 INSC 440 wherein reason for cause of death in a case arising out of 'dowry death' is considered to be a vital ground for the purpose of consideration of bail application. 7. In aforesaid circumstances, the bail application is rejected. May 5, 2026 AK BAIL No. 5232 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad