Allowed

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023BAIL/45258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed second bail application of Vikas Yadav, implicated in wife's murder dowry case. Granted bail despite previous rejection for lack of prosecution, citing speedy trial rights and jail overcrowding under Art. 21.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and ensuring presence in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215387

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45258 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vikas Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Husnaara Khatoon,Anand Kumar Upadhyay

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶10

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution by the order dated 20.09.2023.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated in this case for causing murder of his wife on account of unfulfilled demand of dowry. Before the trial court, 2 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 27.05.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. This is the first implication of the applicant. The other co-accused have already been bailed out.

¶12

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of

¶14

the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Vikas Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 88 of 2020, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Didarganj, District- Azamgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21