Allowed

Suresh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022BAIL/5771/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant accused under dower harassment and dowry prohibition sections, granting release on bond and sureties subject to conditions regarding non-interference with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non-interference and appearance before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5771 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,Prem Narayan Singh,Ram Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Birendra Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Bahadur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Yash Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Birendra Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the informant, and perused the record.

¶6

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 352, 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged by the applicant's wife against seven named accused persons, including the applicant and his family members stating that the informant had got married to the applicant on 04.05.2018 and that the applicant and his family members used to harass her for pressing the demand of dowry. It is alleged that on 31.01.2021 on the exhortation the applicant's father Shyamjeet Yadav and his uncle Ramchandra Yadav and Teju Yadav and other accused persons had beaten up the informant and the applicant and his brother had beaten her up causing injuries on her abdomen and back with intention to cause her miscarriage. It is stated that on 02.02.2021, the informant went to her father's house and on 08.02.2021, she went to the government hospital and on 09.02.2021, it was found upon her ultrasonography that child in her womb had died. The FIR states that the that the informant was discharged from the hospital on 10.02.2021.

¶8

4.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 31.10.2021. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the

¶9

applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶10

5.Sri Anil Srivastava, Senior Advocate has stated that the coaccused applicant's father, mother and brother have already been granted bail by the learned court below.

¶11

6.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

7.Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 31.01.2021; that the informant has stated that after she suffered a miscarriage, she was discharged from the from hospital on 10.02.2021 and the FIR has been lodged on 26.03.2021; that she had gone to her father's house on 02.02.2021; that there is no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR and that three of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶13

8.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶14

9.Let the applicant Suresh Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 352, 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

10.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the

¶20

prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.11.14 14:54:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja @ Ishteqar Vs State of U.P.

Kusumveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava Alias Jhablu Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pavan Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Yadav @ Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.