HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21415 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Pratik Dhar Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3340 of 2025 (Ram Milan Vs. State of U.P.). 4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ram Milan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 241 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present case is a case of suicide and not of dowry death. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which the first informant Smt. Gulzari Devi has been examined as P.W.-1 who has stated identically in her examination-in-chief as per her statement under Section 180 BNSS but the cross-examination would go to show that the applicant was not involved in the present matter. It is submitted that at the time of the incident the applicant was no present at the place of occurrence and was living in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Yadav, Rahul Kumar, Rajesh Maurya, Rakesh Kumar Bharti, Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ram Milan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Mumbai. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter is pending since long and the testimony of witnesses is not being recorded diligently and thus looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 06.08.2024 he may be granted bail. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 34. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the submissions and prayer for bail and submitted that the present case is a case of dowry death in which the allegations are of committing death of Smt. Renu in her matrimonial house by drowning her in a pond. It is submitted that all the argument as raised were considered at the time of decision of the first bail application and in so far as the appreciation of the statement of P.W.-1 is concerned, the same has to be done by the trial court at the appropriate stage and appreciating the said statement and giving a finding about it in a bail application would not be in the fitness of things. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025, the same reads as under:- "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ram Milan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 241 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 25.07.2024 by Gulzari Devi against the applicant and 03 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter Renu Devi was solemnized with the applicant on 16.10.2023. The accused persons were not happy with marriage and used to torture & trouble her. There was demand of a motorcycle, one gold chain and Rs. One lakh as dowry by the accused persons. Subsequently on 08.07.2024 the accused persons drowned her in a pond near the house wherein she died. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation regarding demand of dowry is totally false and incorrect. Learned counsel has placed Anneuxre-7 to the affidavit in support of bail application being a pedigree of Saddu to show that the applicant is a distant relative of the deceased. It is submitted that since the applicant was a BAIL No. 21415 of 2025 2 distant relative of the deceased there was no occasion for demand of dowry. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and all the accused persons. While paragraph 12 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was living in depression as the applicant was living in Mumbai and doing his work there and thus she committed suicide by drowning. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 06.08.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The postmortem examination although shows that the deceased was not found to have received any external injury all over the body but the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning. The reason as disclosed by the applicant in paragraph 12 of the affidavit regarding the deceased committing suicide does not transpire confidence. No ground for bail exists. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 8. The trial in the matter is going on in which the statement of four witnesses have been recorded. All the said four witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Even the first informant has supported the prosecution case. The argument as advanced have already been advanced earlier and were considered at the time of decision of the first bail application. No ground for bail is made out. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant pressed the Court for expediting the trial. No such circumstance has come forward for this Court to pass such an exceptional order of placing the trial at a higher platform than other cases. The said prayer thus stands rejected. 11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 1, 2026 AS Rathore BAIL No. 21415 of 2025 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad