Allowed

Jagendra @ Jogendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023BAIL/13802/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed bail to a male applicant accused of murdering his wife via dowry demand and suicide. The court granted relief primarily because key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the applicant had been detained for over a year.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

Jagendra @ Jogendra Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13802 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jagendra @ Jogendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi,Ashish Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and his six other family members and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was performed with the daughter of the informant in the year 2016 and after her marriage, applicant and his family members tortured the daughter of the informant for want of one motor-cycle and Rs. 2 lacs and thereafter they committed murder of her daughter by administering some poison.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant neither tortured the deceased nor he ever administered any poison to her and being husband of the deceased, applicant has been implicated in the present matter.

¶9

He further submitted that actually applicant had performed love marriage with the deceased and due to that reason family members of the deceased were not happy and due to their bad behaviour deceased remained in depression and due to depression, she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. He further submitted that as per the viscera report, deceased died due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphide poison but there is no evidence on record which can show that applicant administered the same.

¶10

He further submitted that during trial informant of the case and other witnesses of the case have been examined by the Trial Court and they have turned hostile and they did not support the

¶11

prosecution case. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 13.2.2022 and as all the witnesses of the facts have turned hostile, therefore applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and there is allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation but could not dispute the fact that when informant and her witnesses appeared before the Trial Court and their statements were recorded by the Trial Judge then they turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

Although, applicant is the husband and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there was also demand of dowry and from the perusal of the viscera report, it reflects that she died due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphide poison but from perusal of the record, it reflects that informant and her witnesses appeared before the Trial Court as witnesses and they were examined by the Trial Court and they did not support the prosecution case and they have declared hostile and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 13.2.2022 i.e. for last about more than one year.

¶15

Therefore, considering that the witnesses of facts have turned hostile and applicant is in jail for last about more than one year, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Jagendra @ Jogendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(ii) 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.4.2023

¶23

KK Patel

¶24

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

Jagendra @ Jogendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagendra @ Jogendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpendra @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Rajrani Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Lavkush Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar (Lekhpal) Vs State of U.P.

Kalicharan @ Kallu Sen Vs State of U.P.