Allowed

Vindesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2022BAIL/31722/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Vindesh Yadav, accused of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide, considering overcrowding and lack of strong evidence for the suicide charge, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including no tampering, cooperation in trial, and attendance on dockets.

Vindesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31722 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vindesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Yogendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vindesh Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2021, under Sections 498-A,306 IPC Police Station Lar, District- Deoria, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant that on account of harassment in her matrimonial home for the purpose of dowry the deceased committed suicide.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that marriage of the deceased with applicant took place seven years ago. Deceased committed suicide on account of frustration and short temper.The ingredients for constituting offence under section 306 I.P.C. are not made out from the allegations.The applicant is in jail since 16.7.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶10

Let the applicant 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.

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶15

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶16

The applicant 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 13.9.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶19

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.15 11:13:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vindesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindesh 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

Rohit Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra @ Sonu Vs State of Up

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhura @ Zainuddin @ Sahil Vs State of U.P.