Allowed

Raju Yadav @ Bramha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023BAIL/14430/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application filed challenging conviction in a dowry death case involving Section 498A and 304-B IPC. The High Court considered the delay in FIR, the death location, and medical evidence favoring the applicant and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The instant bail application is allowed and the applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14430 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Yadav @ Bramha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in S.T. No. 341 of 2020, Case Crime No. 306 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nebuwa Narangiya, District Kushinagar during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.11.2019 against applicant and his parents and according to the FIR marriage of applicant was performed with the daughter of informant about a year before and due to demand of motorcycle, daughter of informant was started residing with him in her paternal home but on 23.04.2019 applicant stated that he and his parents want to talk with the deceased and thereafter informant went along with deceased at the place where they were called by the applicant and other accused persons and after that some conversation took place between daughter of the informant and applicant and his parents and during conversation some edible item was given by the applicant and his parents to the deceased and thereafter deceased and informant returned back to the home but within 10-15 minutes deceased died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged after about more than six months through an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no plausible explanation has been given by the informant for such inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case. He further submits that admittedly deceased died in her paternal home and after her death after about one and half months false story was cooked up by the informant and applicant has been implicated in the present

¶10

case and applicant neither demanded any dowry nor ever tortured the deceased and deceased herself started living in her paternal home.

¶11

He further submits that from the post mortem of the deceased, it appears that cause of death could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved but as per viscera report she died due to Aluminum Phosphate but deceased at the time of her death residing in her paternal home, therefore, applicant being husband could not be held responsible for the death of the deceased.

¶12

He further submits that although in the FIR it is mentioned that during conversation, applicant and his parents provided some edible items to the deceased, therefore, she died but this fact appears to be false and baseless and it is not possible for anybody to consume Aluminum Phosphate. He next submits that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 06.04.2020 i.e. for last about more than three years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and there is specific allegation that during conversation deceased consumed some edible item, which was provided by the applicant and his parents and subsequently it appears that she died due to consumption of Aluminum Phosphate but he could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after about more than six months through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and applicant in the present matter is in jail since 06.04.2020 i.e. for last about more than three years.

¶14

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

¶15

Although, applicant is husband and deceased died within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances due to the consumption of Aluminum Phosphate but at the time of death deceased was residing in her paternal home and she died in her paternal home and FIR was lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after about more than six months and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 04.06.2019 i.e. after more than one and half months, therefore, it appears that informant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. belatedly after about one and half months from the death of the deceased.

¶16

Further, although it is alleged in the FIR that after consumption some edible item, which was provided by the applicant and his parents deceased died after reaching at her paternal home within 10-15 minutes but story narrated by the informant does not inspire any confidence as the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant after about one and half months.

¶17

Further, applicant in the present matter is in jail since 06.04.2020 i.e. for last about more than three years.

¶18

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in view of this Court, it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant - Raju Yadav @ Bramha 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 AK Pandey

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Yadav @ Bramha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Yadav @ Bramha 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

Tej Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farook Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Abid Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Pal Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.