Allowed

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/4886/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the bail application of Kuldeep Yadav accused of cruelty, dowry death, and bribery. Ruling that he was a fit case for bail given his lack of prior history, the court granted release subject to strict conditions, including appearance mandates and prohibitions on tampering.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:851

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4886 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the sister of the informant Shruti Yadav was married with the applicant on 29.8.2018. Soon after marriage, she was subjected to torture by the husband for bringing less dowry and Rs.10 lacs was demanded. The informant's sister was also threatened by her husband. On 29.11.2022 at about 1200 hours, Kuldeep Yadav, present applicant informed the complainant that Shruti has died.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general allegation of demand of dowry has been made against rest of family members. Against the applicant, although specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made but the statement of the complainant under section 161 CrPC does not depict that the demand was made in close proximity to the death. The applicant was married with the deceased 4 1/2 years back, having one child. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging.

¶10

It is admitted case of the prosecution that it was the applicant who informed the complainant and this is the consistent stand of the prosecution even in the statement of the complainant under section 161 CrPC. It is submitted that no offence under section 304-B I.P.C. is made out against the applicant as the alleged demand of dowry according to own case of the prosecution is vague as no time or month or year of the said demand has been given in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 30.11.2022.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, post mortem report and the statement of the prosecution witnesses, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

6. Let the applicant Kuldeep Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.347 of 2022 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Banthra, district Lucknow, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶20

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) 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.

¶22

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 kkb/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Parmendra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Angad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surenrda Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Ishityaqk @ Manne Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ram Tiwari Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.