Allowed

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020BAIL/40476/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC for dowry death, the Single Judge found the applicant's alibi credible and noted suicide evidence. Citing Article 21 and Dataram Singh, the court allowed bail initially without sureties due to lockdown restrictions, to be furnished later.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond without sureties initially; to furnish sureties within one month of court reopening; strict conditions on appearance and trial timeline imposed.

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40476 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Renu Singh,Rajan Srivastava,Ram Narayan Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Shri V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ram Narayan Srivastava, Advocate and Ms. Renu Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The applicant is facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 124 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Barsathi, District-Jaunpur and is in jail since 30.06.2020.

¶7

Submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, Ranjana Yadav, who got married on 19.05.2019. For an unfortunate incident of hanging by her daughter, Ranjana Yadav, an F.I.R. was got lodged by the father of the deceased Kanhaiya Lal Yadav on 30.06.2020 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicant and his parents with the allegation that for a demand of one BULLET motor-cycle her daughter was harassed and tortured by the husband and in-laws. For this demand the husband become infuriated and brutally assaulted her and lastly, both husband and her mother hanged her daughter, causing her death.

¶8

Argued by learned Senior Counsel that present is a typical case where levelling an omnibus role to all the family members of the husband/applicant entire family has been roped in, exploiting the unfortunate demise of informant's own daughter. It is contended by the counsel that the applicant is working in the Mumbai as low paid employee in some private concern. It is beyond his imagination to maintain a BULLET motor-cycle out of his limited means, but a story was tailored by the informant attracts the penal provision of dowry death in I.P.C.

¶9

Fact remains that in her autopsy report it explicitly clear that their is an incomplete mark of ligature around her neck which is obliquely placed over her neck, suggestive of the fact that she

¶10

committed suicide by hanging herself. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.

¶11

Their could be thousands of reasons of committing suicide, but in such a short duration, what was so untoward happened for her to take this extreme step for self immolation??

¶12

In reply to this learned Senior Counsel argued that during lockdown period most of the north Indians labourers including applicant have to evacuate Mumbai on account of prevailing pandemic and rushed to his native place Jaunpur.

¶13

Almost same time father of the applicant have developed some serious cardiac problem. He has to undergo by-pass surgery. The applicant being lone son of his parents served out his father. Even today he is undergoing medication. In fact there is nobody to look after his father. During June 2020 when rigours of lockdown got relaxed, then the applicant again decided to go back to Mumbai to resume his work so that he may start earning. On this score the wife (deceased) insisted to accompany her husband to Mumbai. This suggestion was refused by the applicant/husband and asked her to serve his ailing father-in-law at Jaunpur. Learned Senior Counsel has asserted that this could be more probable reason behind her action.

¶14

It is further contended by the learned for the applicant that the contesting parties belongs to lower-middle class having modest source of income. For them to have BULLET motor-cycle (Rs. 2 lacs+) is like a dream, beyond their resources. The applicant too cannot afford or maintain the motor-cycle from his limited means. It is lastly contended that every unnatural death is not a dowry death. It is given a colour of dowry death by exaggerating and exploiting the unfortunate death of wife.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail by mentioning the fact that within seven years of marriage under an unnatural and extraordinary circumstance, the wife is committing suicide at the residence of the applicant, the presumption of Sections 113A and 113-B of the Evidence Act would come into play.

¶16

No doubt that this unfortunate incident took place at the residence of the applicant but the submissions advanced by learned counsel seems to be more appealing at this stage of bail. Both the parties are financially not so sound. It is unthinkable that the applicant who is low paid daily wager would demand BULLET motor-cycle, who himself stay at Mumbai and any how sailing his boat every day. The root of differences lies some where else which was argued by learned counsel at

¶17

length.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Ajay Kumar Yadav , who is involved in aforementioned case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶22

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶23

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE

¶24

OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶25

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶27

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶28

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶29

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶30

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶31

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶32

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶33

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶34

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 / Sunil Kr. Gupta

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikram Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Gabbar Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.