Allowed¶24

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024/55/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted to Ashok Kumar Yadav; dowry-death allegations; Case Crime No. 209 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act; P.S. Dhanpatganj, district Sultanpur; deceased married 9.5.2017, missing 19.8.2021, FIR 26.8.2021 after recovery of decomposed body; applicant in jail since 29.8.2021; no criminal history; circumstantial-evidence case; two fact witnesses examined; bail without opinion on merits; conditions incl. S.229-A IPC, S.82 Cr.P.C., S.174-A IPC; trial to conclude within one year; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:13998; order dated 16.2.2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Ashok Kumar Yadav on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the imposed conditions; trial court directed to expedite and conclude the trial within one year. ¶24

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ashok Kumar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 209 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, should be enlarged on bail during the pending trial.

¶15

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the applicant's lack of criminal history, the case being one of circumstantial evidence with two fact witnesses already examined, the arguments advanced, and the period spent in jail, and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, presence on trial dates (absence without sufficient cause exposing him to proceedings under Section 229-A IPC), and consequences of misuse of bail (proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 174-A IPC).

¶16

Key takeaways

The trial court was directed to expedite and conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of the order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55 of 2022 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; order dated 16.2.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:13998). Applicant Ashok Kumar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 209 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dhanpatganj, district Sultanpur, sought bail. Prosecution case: the deceased, married to the applicant on 9.5.2017, was allegedly subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his sister-in-law; on 19.8.2021 she told the informant she was suffering in her in-laws' house and feared being killed; she went missing and her decomposed body was later recovered, the FIR being lodged on 26.8.2021. Applicant in jail since 29.8.2021 with no criminal history; the case was characterised as one of circumstantial evidence with two fact witnesses (complainant and uncle of the deceased) already examined. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for bail and ordered release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; attendance on trial dates, default exposing the applicant to Section 229-A I.P.C. proceedings; misuse of bail triggering proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 174-A I.P.C.). The trial court was directed to expedite and conclude the trial within one year, and a copy of the order to be transmitted to it within a week.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13998

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla,Rakesh Kumar Yadav,Sadhu Sharan Chaubey

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the daughter of the informant Lalita Yadav aged about 26 years was married on 9.5.2017 with Ashok Kumar. His sister was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the applicant and his sister in law. It is further alleged that on 19.8.2021 at about 9.00p.m., the deceased had a talk with the informant and told him that she is suffering in her in laws house and wanted to go with him. Thereafter, when the informant called her on phone, her phone was found switched off. On 20.8.2021 at about 7.00a.m., the informant received a call from the applicant that his daughter is not traceable. It is alleged that on 19.8.2021, the accused persons have killed the informant's daughter.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bona fide of the applicant is apparent from the fact that on 19.8.2021, the deceased went missing. Report of missing was lodged on the next day, i.e. 20th August, 2021 and the first information report was lodged on 26.8.2021 after decomposed body of the victim was recovered.

¶9

It is submitted that general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled. The decomposed body of the victim has been found in a canal which is one kilometre away from the matrimonial home of the deceased. It is submitted that viscera was preserved. Cause of death could not be ascertained. In the FSL report, no poison has been found.

¶10

The applicant is in jail since 29.8.2021. The applicant has no criminal history.The complainant and uncle of the deceased, i.e. two important fact witnesses have been examined. The trial is

¶11

going on at a very slow pace. There is no chance of tampering the evidence.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that that the complainant in his statement under section 161 CrPC has alleged demand of dowry and cruelty at the hands of the applicant and the in laws. It is alleged that one year ago the deceased was expelled from her matrimonial home. She resided there for eight months with her parents. Thereafter, compromise was entered between the parties and she went to her in laws' house.

¶13

One day before lodging of the missing report, the complainant called the deceased on 19.8.2021 at about 9.00p.m. where she has alleged that the she is frightened. The accused used to beat her and she has further apprehended that she will be killed by them. Upon this, he assured that he will come in the morning.

¶14

It is next submitted that the deceased died within seven years of marriage. There is demand of dowry and cruelty to the deceased which is in close proximity to the death of the deceased.

¶15

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the case is of circumstantial evidence and two fact witnesses have been examined, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

6. Let the applicant Ashok Kumar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.209 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dhanpatganj, district Sultanpur, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶20

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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(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.

¶24

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶25

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶26

8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court within a week.

¶27

Order Date :- 16.2.2024 kkb/

¶28

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

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Udai Raj Maurya Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Mohd. Qadir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.