Yogendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6801 of 2024

¶3

Yogendra Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home	Lko.	.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Narendra Goswami Digvijay Rahul Ku	Gupta, Akhilendra , Avinash Singh Singh, Manoj Kumar mar Singh	Kumar Vishen, Verma,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Reh	an Ahmad Siddiqui

¶6

Court No. - 12

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.551 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ramkot, District Sitapur.

¶10

In the prosecution case it is alleged that informant married his daughter Arti Verma with the applicant on 02.05.2023 and has given dowry as per his capacity along with Rs.7,00,000/- cash and other articles. It is alleged that while the deceased came to her parental home she told her younger sister that applicant is having illicit relationship with accused No.4. Lastly on 08.11.2023 informant took his daughter to her matrimonial home. During marriage, the applicant got contractual appointment in the Medical College, Lucknow thus, he wanted to get rid of the deceased and wanted to marry some one else and due to that he used to mentally and physically torture the deceased. The co-accused persons have also demanded the dowry. It is alleged that near the dead body of the deceased a syringe was found. It is further alleged that some poisonous injection has been administered to the deceased.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation regarding administering the poisonous injection has not been corroborated by the post

¶12

BAIL No. 6801 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

mortem report or the statement of the doctor or any other corroborative material, the allegation is false. Applicant is husband. Applicant has no criminal history. P.W.1 has been examined. Cause of death could not be ascertained hence viscera was preserved. In the viscera report, aluminium phosphate poison has been found. He submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Applicant is innocent. Deceased committed suicide on her own. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2024.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that deceased died within six months of her marriage in a most unnatural circumstance, there is specific allegation on the applicant of demand of dowry, it is a case of dowry death, offence is grievous in nature and hence no case for bail is made out.

¶16

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2024 having no criminal history, out of 28 only one witness P.W.1 has been examined so far, improvement has been made in the prosecution case so also the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Yogendra Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

BAIL No. 6801 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

(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 Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶26

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶27

September 16, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Chauhan @ Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pragyesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Aviation, Lko. and Another

Chand Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow