Allowed

Pushpendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2023BAIL/51359/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the bail of the applicant, Pushpendra Yadav, accused of causing dowry death. The court noted false implication and one-sided investigation, emphasizing Article 21 and jail overcrowding, and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding non-tampering with evidence and court appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237166

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51359 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pushpendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Prakash Rathor

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Satya Prakash Rathor, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case false implication. He has referred to the statement of the neighbour of the deceased wherein it has come that marriage of the brother of the deceased was fixed and her father had taken her jewellery. When deceased demanded her ornaments back, her father refused to return the same, hence she committed suicide. The allegation of demand of dowry is unfounded. The applicant is in jail since 14.8.2023 and has no criminal history.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Let the applicant, Pushpendra Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 182 of 2023, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kabrai, District- Mahoba, 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.12.2023 Rohit

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kahkasa Parveen Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Manish Bind Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Kandhai Lal Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others