JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Shekher Srivastava, who is the husband of the deceased Smt. Manjari Srivastava has approached this Court for the second time to grant him bail in crime No. 614 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. George Town, District Allahabad. His first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7394 of 2005 was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.P. Mishra, since retired, on 12.5.05.
2. The thumb nail description of the allegations against the applicant is that the applicant was married to Manjari Srivastava, deceased on 10.2.02 at Allapur, District Allahabad. After the marriage, the applicant's mother Urmila Srivastava, Jeth Bablu Srivastava, Sandeep Srivastava, Sister-in-law Anju Srivastava and other relatives were dissatisfied with the dowry-given in the marriage. The deceased used to complain regarding the assault made on her because of the aforesaid dissatisfaction of the dowry but was consoled by the informant Pramod Kumar Srivastava and his relatives. 15 days before the incident, the deceased Manjari Srivastava had visited her parental house and she had narrated her wooes for demand of dowry but again she was consoled and was sent back on 15.10.04. On 22.10.04 at 3 AM Shyambabu, who is the cousin brother of the present applicant, informed the informant that Smt. Manjari Srivastava had died. The informant rushed to the place of incident and found her daughter dead on the cot. The FIR of the informant was registered at the police station as crime No. 614 of 04, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and D.P. Act P.C. Goerge Town, District Allahabad at 8.30 AM on 22.10.04 itself. The postmortem report of the deceased was conducted at 4.15 PM that day and a ligature mark of 22cmx2cm was found present on her neck and the cause of death was mentioned as asphyxia as a result of hanging. The applicant approached this Court for his bail after the same was rejected by both the courts below but was unsuccessful in his attempt to seek bail from this Court vide bail application No. 7394 of 2005 dated 12.5.05, which order was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.P. Mishra. Hence, this second bail application of the applicant.
3. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant and Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the informant and the learned AGA and have gone through the recored of the first and the second bail applications.
4. Sri. Satish Trividi, learned Senior Counsel contended that the applicant is in jail since October, 2004 and till date, the trial has not been concluded. He further submitted that after rejection of the first bail application, some new facts have developed and; therefore, he has filed the second bail application. He submitted that P.W. 1, P.K. Srivastava during the statement in Court has given all evasive replies to all the relevant questions put to him. He further submitted that the applicant have made an application for summoning defence evidence, which was arbitrarily rejected by the trial court but this Court has allowed their prayer for examining the defence witnesses in Criminal Misc. Application filed by them and there are ample evidence on record to show that no demand of dowry was ever made by the applicant. He further submitted that it is a case of suicide by the deceased and no demand of dowry was ever made from her. He contended that the informant is a very poor person and he runs a small P.C.O. and his earning is very meager. In support of his contention, he has invited the attention of the Court to annexure 4, which is a copy of the statement of P.W. 1 Pramod Kumar Srivastava recorded during the trial. It shows that the informant has got an earning of Rs. 7,000-8,0000/-per month. He further submitted that at the time of inquest, the parental relatives of the deceased and the informant were present but they did not made any complaint regarding dowry at that time. He further submitted that since the pending Sessions Trial has not been concluded at an early date, therefore, the applicant should be allowed bail as he had already remained in jail for nearly 2 years.
5. Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA on the other hand contended that this second bail application does not contain any new ground and what has been stated by learned Senior Counsel had already been considered at the time of rejection the first bail application of the applicant. They further submitted that the prosecution has closed its evidence on 13.1. 06 and on 16.1.06, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded and since then the applicant is lingering on the trial on one pretext on the other and in the trial the dateare being fixed for defence evidence. They further submitted that initially the defence had filed a list of 14 defence witnesses, which was scanned by the trial court and was abridged to 4 witnesses but subsequently, after passing of the order by this Court in Criminal Misc Application No. 5658 of 06 Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. My Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Singh allowing them opportunity to examine defence witnesses the list of the defence witnesses was swelled to 24 witnesses and in this way the applicant is lingering on the trial. They further submitted that infact the arguments were also heard by the Trail Judge finally on 25.5.06, 27.5.06, 29.5.06 and 1.6.06 and after that because of the transfer of the Presiding Officer and subsequently a spate of transfer petitions filed by both the sides the trial could not be concluded. They contended that the Additional Sessions Judge who had recorded all the evidences was transfer to another Court in the same district and, therefore, the trial should be decided by him as it is a part heard Sessions case with him but the accused does not want the trial to be decided by the said Presiding Officer for the reasons best known to them. Consequently, the prosecution can not be saddled with the responsibility of lingering on the trial. They further submitted that at this point of time the trial is stayed in transfer petition, which is pending before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. They further contended that within 2 years of the marriage the deceased had been done to death because of the economic greed by the applicant and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions raised at the bar. After going on through the material place on record, I do not find any reason to grant bail to the applicant. Consequently/this second bail application filed by the applicant stands rejected.