Allowed

Arjun Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023ABAIL/5493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Arjun Yadav accused under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The court granted bail subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each of like amount, subject to cooperation with investigation and other standard conditions.

Arjun Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134071

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5493 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Arjun Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yadvesh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.37 of 2023, registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station- Manda, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was agreed with the deceased person on 21.05.2023 but the applicant and his family members are stated to have demanded Rs.5 lakhs in dowry, of which Rs.3,50,000/- were given in cash and Rs.50,000/- were transferred to the account of Arjun and later on they are stated to have demanded an Alto car. The applicant is stated to have asked the girl not to refrain from marriage of him and the said marriage was being settled without the consent of the applicant, as such peeved by the said act, the victim is stated to have committed suicide by hanging on 02.03.2023 after the phone call of the applicant at about 8:00 PM.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed as it has been instituted on 03.03.2023 at about 10:09 AM. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had abetted the deceased by calling her as there is no phone call record. Learned counsel has further stated that the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no overt act has been assigned to the applicant of having abetted the deceased person to commit suicide and even the demand of dowry cannot be stated to be an

¶11

ingredient of abetting a person to commit suicide. There is not a single whisper of word alleged against the applicant with respect to the abetment, as such ingredient of Section 107 I.P.C. do not stand fulfilled.

¶12

Learned counsel has further stated that the said suicide note also indicates several other factor but does not mention regarding the applicant having instigated her, although it mentions that the applicant used to suspect her having talked to some other person on phone. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel has further stated that the investigation is going on and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant has co-operated in the investigation and undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation in future also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the investigation of going on and in future some evidence may be collected with respect to the said statement.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶15

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:-

¶16

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Arjun Yadav involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶17

(B) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶18

(C) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶19

(D) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Rajan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banti Mishra @ Vineet Kumar Vs State of Up

Ballan Vs State of U.P.

Dara Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rashmi Verma Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Vs State of U.P. and Another