Allowed

Hari Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022BAIL/9337/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Siddharth, J. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9337 of 2022 allowed the bail application of Hari Shankar Yadav, accused of causing death under Section 306 IPC. The court imposed strict conditions on bail including prohibition of tampering with evidence and mandatory presence during critical trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9337 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Hari Shankar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, Noor Muhammad

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant, who is husband of the deceased, and other accused person that they have caused the death of the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was married to the applicant on 06.06.2012. There are two children born from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased. She committed suicide on account of disputes with the family members of her matrimonial home. Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section 302/498-A IPC but it has been converted into Section 306 IPC. The allegation of demand of dowry is not correct. The applicant is in jail since 27.10.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Hari Shankar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 661 of 2021, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station- Uttar, District- Firozabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶12

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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 in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.29 13:47:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shankar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dileep Verma Vs Union of India

Rajkishore Dwivedi Vs State of Up through Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow

Mohit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mehboob Vs State of U.P.

Golu Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P and 3 Others