Jugendra vs State of Up Thru Its Principal Secratary Home

This bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No.308 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mujariya, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

¶10

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is husband of deceased. The marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place on 26.02.2023. It was submitted that only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment of deceased have been levelled against all the accused persons, including applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant was working in Delhi and deceased used to insist to go with him but it could not be possible and she has committed suicide. In postmortem report, except ligature mark, no other injury has been shown on body of deceased and cause of death has been shown asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. It is further submitted that during trial all the witnesses of fact, including

¶11

informant, have been examined before the trial Court and they have not supported prosecution version and turned hostile. It has been further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2023, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased has suffered death other than under normal circumstances within a period of seven years of her marriage.

¶13

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, period of detention and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, a case for bail is made out.

¶14

The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant - Jugendra involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶16

i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness.

¶18

iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶19

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 RKM

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jugendra v. State of Up Thru Its Principal Secratary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugendra v. State of Up Thru Its Principal Secratary 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

Vigani Devi vs State of U.P.

Gulshan vs State of U.P.

Smt Sapna and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shami Alam Alias Samay Alam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Alias Santu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrinath Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another