In this bail application, the High Court considered the request for enlargement during trial. The court found the case to be fit for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the allegations.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and ensuring trial conclusion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38722 of 2020 Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Singh,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for first informant and perused the material available on record.
By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.189 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sonaha, District Basti.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The informant has lodged the impugned FIR against entire family members of the applicant. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. As per postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and there is no injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Further contention is that there are general allegations of demand of dowry against all the accused persons including the applicant. No specific allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the present accused. The applicant has never demanded for additional dowry nor he harassed or tortured the deceased. The allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- by the applicant for purchase of sewing machine is also false and concocted. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2019 having no previous criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the applicant.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant- Jitendra Yadav involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 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.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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.
Order Date :- 29.11.2022/Ajeet
Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.29 15:20:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the trial.
Whether the nature of allegations and gravity of offence warrant bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶8
Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 · Who else cites this
Jitendra Yadav
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
