Allowed

Yusuf v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023BAIL/36126/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused husband accused of dowry death under Section 306 IPC, noting the two-month FIR delay and an informant's admission of the husband's accident-induced financial incapacity as a potential cause of suicide.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant Yusuf released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144768

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36126 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Yusuf Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ateeq Ahmad Khan,Anand Vikram Singh,Mohd. Saleem Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Arniya, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and others on 20.06.2020 under Section 306 IPC and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was performed with the deceased nine years before and after marriage applicant along with his family members tortured her for demand of dowry and due to harassment of the applicant and his family members on 25.04.2020 she ablazed herself.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and entire allegation made against him is totally false and baseless. He further submitted that even as per the prosecution, deceased i.e. wife of the applicant committed suicide on 25.04.2020 but in spite of that FIR was lodged on 20.06.2020 i.e. almost after about two months. He further submitted that the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself suggests that the entire allegation of demand of dowry and torture made against the applicant is totally false and baseless.

¶10

He further submitted that actually wife of the applicant i.e. deceased committed suicide due to reason that about two years before, applicant met with an accident and in the accident he became disable and therefore, he could not earn for his livelihood, therefore, his wife committed suicide. He further submitted that

¶11

even this fact has been admitted by the informant of the case in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 23.07.2020 i.e. for almost three years.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA although, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

Although, applicant is the husband of the deceased but FIR of the present case was lodged after about two months and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. informant i.e. sister of the deceased admitted that about two years before due to accident, applicant became incapable to earn and thereafter he started creating scene in his home, therefore, deceased committed suicide. Therefore, at this stage argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that due to incapability of the applicant to earn due to accident, deceased committed suicide, cannot be completely ruled out. Further, applicant is in jail for almost three yers.

¶15

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, 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- Yusuf 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 anti-social 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

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

¶24

KK Patel

¶25

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

Yusuf v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf 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

Pooja Vs State of U.P.

Aman Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Navdeep Alias Dabbu Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Prakash @ Nanhey Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others