Allowed

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024CRLA/2587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the bail refusal order of the Special Judge in a case involving the alleged suicide of the appellant's wife. The Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the impugned order, and granted bail based on the suicide note and lack of malice. Conditions for bail were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63352

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2587 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Sanjay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Israr Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

The State with its counter affidavit has enclosed a copy of the written information provided to the informant/respondent no.2 by the concerned police station, however, despite service of notice, the respondent no.2 is not represent.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellant/ Sanjay Yadav for grant of bail and to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur in Second Bail Application No.152 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.51 of 2024, under Section 306 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jarwa, District Balrampur, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing this appeal submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that allegations, which have been levelled in the F.I.R., are false, concocted and could not be believed. The information of the incident was given by the appellant himself in the police station concerned and it is on his information, inquest of the body of the deceased was performed, however, the appellant has never treated the deceased with any kind of cruelty and for the last 14 years, the deceased was living with the appellant a happy married life.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that wife of the appellant (deceased) was not having cordial relations with other family members of the appellant and in this regard, about two years

¶12

before the incident, the appellant had made arrangement for her separate living and for the last two years, she was living separately, but started living in a depression as she was not having any person to converse with and it appears that with that state of mind, she has taken extreme step of suicide.

¶13

Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the postmortem report of the deceased, wherein a ligature mark has been found around her neck and no other injury of any kind has been noticed anywhere on her body and the cause of death has been ascertained asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, thus it is evident that the deceased had committed suicide and the appellant despite his best efforts is not in a position to explain the reasons, which might have persuaded the deceased to commit suicide as there is no evident or apparent reason available for the same. It is vehemently submitted that during this period of 14 years, since marriage of the deceased with the appellant, they were blessed with three children and there was no reason available to the deceased to commit suicide.

¶14

It is also submitted that appellant is in jail in this case since 24.06.2024 and he is not having any criminal antecedents. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant is the husband of the deceased and was responsible for welfare of the deceased and having regard to the material/evidence available against the appellant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶16

Considering the facts that the deceased had admittedly died by committing suicide and the cause of death has been ascertained asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, the information pertaining to death of the deceased has been given by the appellant himself, 14 years appears to have elapsed since the marriage and during which the appellant and the deceased (wife) had lived together and blessed with three children and no complaint of any kind was made before any authority and also that nothing has been brought on record, which may suggest that any bad blood had existed between the parties, appellant is in jail in this case since 24.06.2024 without any previous criminal history, a case of bail is emerging in favour of the appellant.

¶17

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has erred materially in passing the impugned order and same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the court below is set-aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed . Pending application(s) stand disposed of.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellant- Sanjay Yadav involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

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

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Anupam S/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pavan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Haneef @ Shareef vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shri Kant Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rinki Devi Thru. Her Father Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sahid Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another