Dismissed

Rajesh @ Akshat Raj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023BAIL/17386/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application was rejected as the applicant, the husband of the deceased, was not entitled to bail in a murder case involving dowry demands. However, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months due to the applicant's prolonged detention.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial concluded within eight months; observations limited to bail disposal.

Rajesh @ Akshat Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150975

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17386 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh @ Akshat Raj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey,Manish Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar,Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay

¶6

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicant and counter affidavit on behalf of the State, filed today are taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ram Narayan Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0144 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chirayakot, District Mau, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was performed with the deceased in the year 2017 and after marriage, applicant and his family members tortured the deceased for want of dowry and due to the want of dowry, they have committed her murder.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations of demand of dowry and torture made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and being husband of the deceased applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶12

He further submitted that although, as per the post mortem report, deceased died due to strangulation and it is a case of homicidal suicide but at the time of incident, applicant was in Bombay and this fact is evident from annexure-2 to the affidavit which is a certificate of Devanta Film Production in which

¶13

applicant worked and from its perusal, it appears that on the date of incident, applicant was in Bombay.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 27.8.2019 i.e. for almost four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded and all the witnesses of fact have been examined, therefore, there is no change of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife was murdered in her matrimonial home and no convincing evidence could be brought on record by the applicant which can show that on the date of incident, applicant was in Bombay and annexure-2 is not a reliable document as it is very easy to procure such certificate and genuineness of the same can only be adjudicated by the trial court, during trial and therefore, applicant does not deserve bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Although, applicant is in jail in the present matter for almost four years but he is husband of the deceased and his wife was murdered in her matrimonial home.

¶18

Although, applicant has a come with a specific plea that on the date of incident he was in Bombay and in this regard, he filed a certificate issued by Production House which has been annexed as annexure-2 to the affidavit which shows that on the date of incident, applicant was in Bombay but I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA that merely on the basis of such document, at this stage, no finding can be recorded by this Court that on the date of incident applicant was in Bombay.

¶19

Admittedly wife of the applicant was murdered in her matrimonial home and there was specific allegation that applicant alongwith his family members tortured her for demand of dowry, therefore, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected .

¶21

However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 27.8.2020 i.e. for almost four years, therefore,

¶22

trial court is directed to conclude the trial within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, strictly as per provision of section 309 Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 27.7.2023

¶25

Ankita

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh @ Akshat Raj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh @ Akshat Raj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Kalawati Vs State of Up

Faisal Malik @ Suheb Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bheem Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Seth Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Paswan Vs State of U.P.