Allowed

Nishant Tyagi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2022BAIL/42240/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the single judge granted bail to the applicant. The court noted discrepancies in prosecution witness statements, suicide note inconsistencies, and eyewitness accounts suggesting a skirmish led to suicide. Despite hostile witnesses, bail was allowed with conditions requiring presence in court and undertaking not to see

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

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

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42240 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Nishant Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Prateek Kumar Srivastava,Ram Narayan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Nishant Tyagi, who is involved in Case Crime No.699 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bisarakh, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that in the FIR there were various allegations to the effect that the applicant and the other family members were demanding dowry from the deceased; the applicant had also maltreated the deceased inasmuch as he had got her foetus aborted and his sister Reena had beaten the deceased to the extent that she had broken her leg; the applicant had kept the phone of the deceased in his possession, the deceased's treatment was even got done by the father of the deceased; the deceased was always forced to get dowry from her brother. However, the case of the prosecution, it has been argued, gets falsified by the statement which has been given by the P.W.1,

¶9

¶10

Muniraj, the father of the deceased who had stated in his statement on 04.01.2022 before the Court that he had only signed on a plain paper and had never lodged an FIR. The P.W.1 had also stated that there was no demand of dowry etc. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of the Court to the statement which was given by the brother of the deceased Rahul wherein he had stated that his sister had never made any complaint with regard to the applicant and family members. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Nishant Tyagi and his father Subodh Tyagi were the witnesses of the inquest. He also drew the attention of the Court to the statement of an elderly lady namely Kavita Thakkar who was 57 years of age and was living in the tower opposite to the tower in which the incident had occurred. He further drew the attention of the Court to her statement wherein she had stated that the deceased first threw her son and, thereafter, herself had jumped from the building. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of the Court to the evidence which was given before the Police of one Sushil Kumar, the Guard who had stated that it was for a fact that the sister in law had come running to him and had some burn injuries. By the statements of the Guard, Sushil Kumar and the neighbor, Kavita Thakkar the applicant had tried to illustrate that there was a skirmish / hot talk between the sister-in-law and the deceased and, therefore, the deceased had committed suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of the Court to the handwritten suicide note which had till date not been actually dealt with and it could not be said with any certainty as to in whose handwriting the suicide note was written. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to make out a case that there was infact no

¶11

¶12

demand for dowry but there was some small skirmish between the sister in law and the deceased and, therefore, the incident had occurred. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when the bail of the co-accused Nirdesh Tyagi was rejected on 21.9.2021 the statements which the father of the deceased and the brother of the deceased had given before the Court were not there on record. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of the Court to the postmortem report of the two deceased and tried to explain the injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the injuries on the body of the lady, were more than the injuries on the body of the child because of the weight of the lady. It is further submitted that the child was not having much weight and therefore laceration on account of the fall was lesser as compared to the laceration on the body of the deceased lady. Thus on the deceased lady wounds were wide wounds which were 1x1 c.m., 10x4 c.m., 5x12 c.m., 10x9 c.m., 4x24 c.m., 2x2 c.m. and 18x6 c.m. in size. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, tried to explain the injuries by saying that the deceased lady had fallen from the 17th floor and, therefore, the injuries were there which could come only if a person falls from a height. Since the child was smaller in size and had fallen on his head, the injuries, therefore, on his body were different in nature. He further submitted that the ante-mortem injuries were not possible on the body of the deceased because had they been inflicted of that magnitude then the busy neighbourhood would have heard the shouting etc. of the deceased, which evidence has not been brought on record at all. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 19.05.2021 and if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution

¶13

¶14

witnesses. It is further submitted that the charge sheet had been submitted by the Police and further investigation was not required. On the other hand, learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer for bail. He laid stress mainly on the post-mortem reports and on the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the father of the deceased and the brother of the deceased had turned hostile due to passage of time and, therefore, the prosecution had to continue on its own strength. He further submits that the injuries were such which would easily illustrate that family members had beaten the deceased and, thereafter, had thrown her from the 17th floor. He further submits that when the father of the deceased had earlier stated that the dowry demand was there then it could be proved by bringing in further evidence of the prosecution. Bald statement of the witnesses who had turned hostile could not be relied upon. Learned counsel for the first informant Sri Dipesh Kumar Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party did not choose to oppose the bail application as the first informant had given his statement in favour of the applicant. However, learned A.G.A. could not deny the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. It was also not denied that the charge sheet in the case had been submitted by the Police and no further investigation was required.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel for the informant, I am of the view that the applicant is to be granted bail. The applicant was at the time of inquest available. He had not run away. What is more if the statements of the Guard Sushil Kumar and that of the lady Kavita Thakkar who appeared to be the

¶16

¶17

witnesses of fact and who had also given the statement before the Police is looked into then the story of the skirmish between nanad, (sister-in-law) and the deceased gets credence. Still further the statements which the father and brother namely Muniraj and Rahul had given on 4.1.2022 and 29.03.2022 respectively cannot be ignored by the Court. It is another matter that they have been declared hostile and the prosecution would try to prove the case later-on. Learned A.G.A. also did not deny the fact that the charge sheet had been submitted by the Police.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶19

Let the applicant, Nishant Tyagi be released on bail in Case Crime No.699 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304 B of I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bisarakh, District- Gautam Budh Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) 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 the court.

¶21

In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as an abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

(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 of the

¶23

¶24

Indian Panel Code.

¶25

(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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed on such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case (ii) framing of charges and (iii) recording of statement under Section 323 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 an abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.5.2022

¶28

vkj

¶29

Digitally signed by VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.20 18:38:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nishant Tyagi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant Tyagi 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

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Manoj @ Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Amresh Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Vs State of U.P.