Allowed

Munnalal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2022BAIL/14230/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The High Court released the applicant on bail as he is a distant relative (fufera sasur) with no specific dowry allegations and resides separately from the accused family, distinguishing his case from the husband and in-laws.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Munnalal Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14230 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munnalal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Yadav,Harish Chandra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Narayan Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Munnalal Yadav who happens to be distantly related to the deceased being the fufera sasur. Prayer has been made to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad.

¶7

As per the FIR, the deceased was married to one Vishal resident of Mohalla Teekatpura, PS Jasrana, Firozabad on 31.05.2020 and there are allegations of specific demand of dowry made against the family members. The dead body of the deceased has been found with multiple injuries on 30.10.2021. Apart from husband, other persons implicated are father in law and mother in law etc.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is resident of a different locality and there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR. It is also stated that not being a close family member, the applicant otherwise not a beneficiary and even presumption in terms of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act would not be against the applicant. Submission is that the applicant has no prior criminal history and is in jail since 29.01.2022 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶9

Although the bail application is opposed by Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State but the plea of separate living of the applicant is not seriously disputed. It is also not disputed that there are no specific allegations of demand of dowry on part of the applicant.

¶10

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that case of the applicant stands as separate and distinguished from that of the husband and the real in-laws. He is otherwise shown to be living elsewhere and is not a close family member. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶11

Let the applicant Munnalal Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime 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, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant 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.

¶15

(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the 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 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.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 Madhurima

¶21

Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.05.21 13:51:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munnalal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munnalal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Amit Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Yadav Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Karru @ Vinit Vs State of U.P.