Raj Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 5962 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Raj Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 10 March, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35042
 
Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35470 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Raj Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Raj Kumar, who is involved in Session Trial No. 542 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant-Munesh, who is father of the deceased-Nisha Yadav lodged a first information report against the applicant for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant-Rajkumar Yadav who is husband of the deceased making allegations inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 04.12.2017 with the applicant and in the marriage he had given sufficient dowry as per his capacity, but after the marriage there was consistent demand of Apache motorcycle by the applicant, and after sometime, pressure upon his daughter to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- from her parents was made by the applicant, and on account of non-fulfillment of his demands she was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home. On 21.04.2024, the informant received an information from the applicant that his daughter has committed suicide.

4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that though the complainant who is father of the deceased has made allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant but when he was examined before the trial court as PW-1, he has not supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief. Thereafter, statements of other prosecution witnesses were recorded as PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, and they have also been declared hostile, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 29.04.2024 having no criminal history to his credit, may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the deceased died her unnatural death within six years and four months of her marriage in her matrimonial home, hence the presumption under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act shall be drawn against the applicant. It is further submitted that complainant/informant has been examined as PW-1 before the trial and he, in his examination-in-chief, has fully supported the prosecution case and he has also proved his F.I.R. which has been exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1. It is also pointed out that PW-1 has not been declared hostile, but he has given some contradictory statements in his cross-examination. Much emphasis has been given by contending that F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 27.04.2024, whereas statement of PW-1 has been recorded after a considerable delay on 06.08.2024 and thereafter statement of other prosecution witnesses have been recorded, therefore, possibility of winning over the prosecution witnesses from the side of accused cannot be ruled out. It is also submitted that after cross-examination of PW-1, other prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile. it is further submitted that in view of the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278, 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 it is not in dispute that the complainant-Munesh (father of the deceased) has fully supported the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. in his examination-in-chief dated 06.08.2024 giving vivid description of the incident, but he has given some contradictory statements in his cross-examination. After cross-examination of PW-1, examination-in-chief of PW-2 to PW-6 were recorded, then they supported the version of cross-examination of PW-1. I also find that all the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined before the trial court and only formal witnesses are yet be examined. From tone and tenor of the cross-examination of PW-1 and statements of PW-2 to PW-6, possibility of winning over the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The law is well settled that a man can lie, but the circumstances and material evidence on record cannot.

7. The Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra, (1996) 10 SCC 360 has also settled the law if there are contradiction 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. The issue regarding the evidentiary value of examination-in-chief of such witnesses, who had turned hostile in their cross-examination, has also been well considered and settled by the Apex Court in the case of Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, (2015) 2 SCC 662 by holding that merely for the reason that the witnesses have turned hostile in their cross-examination, the testimony in examination-in-chief cannot be outrightly discarded provided the same (statement in examination-in-chief supporting prosecution) is corroborated from the other evidence on record. In other words, if the court finds from the two different statements made by the same accused, only one of the two is believable, and what has been stated in the cross-examination is false, even if the witnesses have turned hostile, the conviction can be recorded believing the testimony given by such witnesses in the examination-in-chief. However, such evidence is required to be examined with great caution.

9. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, this Court in exercise of its powers under Sections 439 Cr.P.C. is not examining the statements of prosecution witnesses meticulously so that trial of the applicant may not be affected.

10. However, 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 and stage of trial, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

12. 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.

13. Needless to say that trial Court shall made an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.

14. Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad is directed to ensure the production of the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court so that trial of the applicant may conclude at the earliest.

15. On appearance on the prosecution witnesses their statements shall be recorded on the same dates.

16. Copy of this order be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad and trial Court concerned within a week for necessary information and compliance.

Order Date :- 10.3.2025

Kashifa