The court rejected the bail application of Brijesh Yadav, the husband of the deceased in a dowry death case, citing his responsibility for the deceased's safety. A direction for speedy trial is issued.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14330 of 2021
Applicant :- Brijesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Brijesh Yadav with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.157 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Baghauch, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/ applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case because he happens to be husband of the deceased. His further submission is that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased four years ago and the alleged incident occurred on 22.11.2019. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report came to be lodged against the present applicant on the basis of false and fabricated facts. His next submission is that according to first information report, there are general and omnibus allegations of demand of dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry against the accused/ applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the accused/ applicant. Therefore, the accused/ applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. His further submission is that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2021 who has no previous criminal history. He further submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will also fully co-operate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the accused/ applicant is named in the first information report, who has done
his wife to death due to demand of dowry. The accused/ applicant is husband of the deceased who has a higher degree of responsibility towards safety and well being of his wife. He further contends that no women would commit suicide leaving two children in her lap. Witnesses of fact have almost been examined. Only formal witnesses are to be examined for which considering the nature of the evidence of the witnesses of fact the applicant/accused may admit genuineness of the formal papers or the formal proof may be dispensed with. He is prime accused. Therefore, the accused/ applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the accused/ applicant is named in the first information report, who happens to be husband of the deceased. The accused/ applicant being husband of the deceased has a higher degree of responsibility towards safety and well being of the deceased. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, nature and manner of commission of offence and evidence regarding the complicity of applicant, no case for bail, at this stage, is made out.
Accordingly, the instant application for bail is rejected .
However, keeping in view the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2021, the learned trial Court concerned is directed to get the trial concluded with utmost expedition keeping in mind the provisions of Section 309 CrPC, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy/computerized copy of this order, in case there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023 Shahroz
Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves bail under Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 DP Act.
Whether the applicant is entitled to a fast-track trial given the delay in incarceration.
Brijesh Yadav
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
