Allowed

Dhirendra Bahadur Yadav S/O Radheyshyam (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2022/6812/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail application where the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused-applicant in a case involving Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The court noted the lack of evidence regarding dowry demand apart from witness statements and the absence of injuries other than a ligature mark. Bail was granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding

What did the court decide?

Accused-enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with specific conditions.

Dhirendra Bahadur Yadav S/O Radheyshyam (Second Bail) Vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6812 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dhirendra Bahadur Yadav S/O Radheyshyam (Second Bail)

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Kumar Maurya,Matambar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate on this 2nd application for bail and gone through the entire record.

¶7

The first application for bail of the accused-applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.02.2022 passed by Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J. in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.13532 of 2021. After the matter being released by His Lordship vide order dated 06.09.2022, this case got listed before this Court.

¶8

Counter affidavit tendered by the learned A.G.A. in the Court is taken on record.

¶9

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.264 of 2021, arising out of FIR No.0261 of 2021, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Phoolbehad, District Kheri.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the deceased did not want to marry the accused-applicant; marriage of the deceased was performed against her wishes with the accused-applicant by her parents; the deceased was in love relationship with younger brother of husband of her elder sister; she wanted to marry the said person, but her marriage was performed with the accused-applicant and, therefore, she remained unhappy. It is further submitted that the deceased stayed for short time in family of the accused-applicant and she committed suicide. In respect of the said contention, the learned counsel for the accused-applicant has placed reliance upon postmortem report, which would reflect only ligature mark and cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. It is further submitted that there was no dowry demand, as alleged, and the allegations of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty have been made only to attract the offence under Section 304-B IPC. It is further

¶11

submitted that since the accused-applicant is in jail since 29.06.2021, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the bail, however, he has not disputed the fact that except for ligature mark no other injury was noticed during postmortem examination and there is no evidence regarding dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty except for the statement of family members of the deceased.

¶13

Considering the said facts & circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶14

Let applicant - Dhirendra Bahadur Yadav, accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) the applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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;

¶16

(ii). the applicant(s) 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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 of the Indian Penal Code; and

¶18

(iv) the applicant(s) shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

[D.K. SINGH, J]

¶20

Order Date :- 21.12.2022 MVS/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Date: 2022.12.21 18:38:48 IST Lucknow BenchReason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhirendra Bahadur Yadav S/O Radheyshyam (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Bahadur Yadav S/O Radheyshyam (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Badrunnisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko.

Sudheer Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/O Kandhayi Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Ilyaas Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.