Allowed

Suryabhan Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2022BAIL/47190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, the High Court considered the applicant's claims of innocence and false implication due to his age and conduct. Finding that the similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail, the court allowed the application and directed release on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount, subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47190 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suryabhan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Vinay Kumar Tiwari,Vineet Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for first informant and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Haldharpur, District Mau, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and his son Sudhir Kumar Yadav was married to the deceased on 21.11.2021. After the marriage, applicant has never made any demand of additional dowry either from the deceased or her family members nor tortured her, maltreated her or subjected her to cruelty for the non-fulfillment of the same.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that on the basis of general and vague allegation, instant FIR has been lodged against the applicant and the applicant, being father-in-law of the deceased, has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report, wherein the Doctor has noted the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and except a ligature mark, there is no other injury mark on the person of the deceased.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that

¶12

in fact, victim may have committed suicide by hanging herself, in which, applicant has absolutely no role to play and also, there is no specific allegation against the applicant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Smt. Savitri Devi (mother-inlaw of the deceased) has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46596 of 2022 vide order dated 17.11.2022 and case of the applicant stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is aged about 65 years and is in jail since 31.05.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he may be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for first informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and except general and vague allegation, no specific allegation has been made against the applicant. Similarly placed coaccused Smt. Savitri Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased) has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶16

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and after the marriage, he had never made any demand of additional dowry either from the deceased or her family members nor tortured her, maltreated her or subjected her to cruelty for the non-fulfillment of the same. On the basis of general and vague allegation, instant FIR has been lodged against the applicant and the applicant, being father-in-law of the deceased, has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶17

As per the post-mortem report, Doctor has noted the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and except a ligature mark, there is no other injury mark on the person of the deceased. Similarly placed co-accused Smt. Savitri Devi (mother-in-law of the

¶18

deceased) has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶19

Furthermore, the applicant is aged about 65 years and is in jail since 31.05.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Suryabhan Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

The applicant shall continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶22

The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses.

¶23

The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶24

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶26

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 30.11.2022 Nadim

¶28

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.11.30 12:23:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suryabhan Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryabhan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anwari Begum Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Ankush Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhat Saini Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Shrawan Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Ramsurat @ Jangali Vs State of U.P.