Allowed

Yuvraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022BAIL/4549/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application filed by Yuvraj Singh, father-in-law of deceased, in a dowry death case. Bail was granted on condition of furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions preventing tampering with evidence and ensuring attendance in court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and ensuring court attendance.

Yuvraj Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4549 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Yuvraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the first informant states that he has filed his vakalatnama in the office on 14.02.2022. The same is not on record.

¶7

Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Yuvraj Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1639 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that the general and omnibus role has been assigned to all the accused persons without any specification therein. It is argued in the postmortem report a single injury being a ligature mark has been found on the body of the deceased and the doctor has opined the cause of death due to antimortem hanging. It is argued that the applicant is living separately from the deceased and her husband as stated in para 13 of the affidavit. The applicant is aged about 60 years as stated in para 9 of the affidavit. Ankit Singh the husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 11 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.12.2021.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the conduct of the applicant and the other family members is very bad. After the death of the deceased, there was no communication to any of the authority by them. The applicant is

¶11

named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against him.

¶12

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging. No other bodily injury has been found on the body of the deceased except for a ligature mark. Ankit Singh the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Yuvraj Singh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.

¶19

(V) 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

¶20

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

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.

¶23

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.2.2022 M. ARIF

¶25

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.02.15 14:17:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yuvraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Singh 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

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar@ Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Smt Anita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.