Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29207 of 2020 Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar,Onkar Singh,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Dixit Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶2It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 26.09.2019 of which F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant on 30.09.2019 at about 18:10 hours. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegation that the complainant has solemnized marriage of his daughter with the applicant on 29.11.2017. At the time of marriage sufficient amount of dowry was given along with the cash of four lakh rupees, but the in-laws of the daughter of complainant were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they used to make demand of a four wheeler in the form of additional dowry, and on account of non fulfillment thereof the daughter of complainant was being harassed and maltreated. Ultimately on

26.09.2019 the husband of the daughter of complainant along with his other family members done to death by hanging her.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased and has falsely been implicated in the case. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. The relations between the applicant with her wife were cordial except some minor disputes which always arose between husbands and wives. General allegations for demand of dowry and on account of non fulfillment thereof, causing cruelty to the deceased has been made in the first information report against all the named accused persons including the applicant. Neither any demand was made by the in-laws of the deceased including the applicant, nor any complaint was ever made after the marriage or prior to the date of incident. It has further been argued that the deceased was a short tempered lady, she was not satisfied with the applicant and was living under stress and mental pressure and ultimately on the date of incident she committed suicide by hanging herself. At the time of inquest family members of applicant as well as family members of the deceased were present.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased has written a suicide note in which she has not made any allegation against the applicant or his family members regarding demand of dowry or torture meted to her.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It has also been submitted that except one ligature mark of size 18.0 c.m. x 3.0 c.m. all around the neck no other injury was found on the person of the deceased, which shows that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. Thus, it is alleged that no offence as alleged has been committed by the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2020, having no criminal history.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶8Let the applicant-Yogendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 709 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 316 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Karwi, District Chitrakoot, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶9The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶10The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Mustaqeem. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad