Point of Law: Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto.

JUDGMENT :

1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.7.2021.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2019, U/S 498A, 307, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has not put forward any new ground for bail except the ground that two prosecution witnesses have been examined in Court and they have not supported the prosecution story. They have completely resiled from their earlier statement given to the I.O. and the allegations of the FIR. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no possibility of conviction in the present case under the circumstances. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that both the witnesses have deposed against the applicant in their examination-in-chief and later on, during cross-examination on subsequent dates, they had won over and have been declared hostile. Learned A.G.A. has stated that there is dying declaration of the applicant which categorically indicates towards the complicity of the applicant.

6. The Apex Court in Rajesh Yadav and another etc. vs. State of U.P. 2022 Cri.L.J. 2986 (SC) has dealt with the evidentiary value of the Hostile witnesses. It has been held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto. The relevant parts thereof, which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence, as the case may be.

7. Considering the fact that there is dying declaration and the witnesses of fact P.W. 1 and 2 have also reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR in their examination-in-chief, and in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Yadav (supra), I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.