The court established that the prosecution must prove its case for bail to be denied, but serious charges and lack of changed circumstances can justify the denial of bail even in the absence of strong evidence against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.67/2020 was registered at Police Station Shrimahaveer Jee, District Karouli, for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of bail, presumption cannot be made a ground for rejecting the bail applications. It is contended that it is for the prosecution to prove that the victim was murdered. There is no last seen evidence or any circumstance leading to the fact that the victim was murdered by the present petitioner. It is also contended that the witnesses are not turning up inspite of bailable warrants issued against them.

4. It is also contended that there is no eye witness against the petitioner. There is no recovery from the petitioner. The nature of evidence is of faint quality. Petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than one year. Out of thirty witnesses, not a single witness has been examined and trial is going to take time. Petitioner is not having criminal antecedents.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Babu Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579", wherein the Court has held that refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another on a later occasion giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. While the Court should set store by the circumstance that the bail application was once rejected it cannot be said that the Court is barred from second consideration at a later stage.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on "Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 22", wherein the Court has held that if it is the first offence, than the Court should have a liberal approach in the matters pertaining to bail.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the second bail application. It is contended that the first bail application was rejected on 16.04.2021 and there is no change in circumstance necessitating entertaining a second bail application.

8. I have considered the contentions.

9. It is true that the prosecution has to establish a case against the accused but in the present case, victim who happens to be wife of the petitioner was cremated without informing the police and her relatives. The reason for her demise, therefore, not coming forth. However, since Court has rejected the first bail application, there is no change in circumstance necessitating entertaining a second bail application. Since, the deceased died at her in-laws house and her husband cremated her without waiting her relatives and police, I am not inclined to allow the second bail application.

10. This second bail application is accordingly, dismissed.