Indraval Yadav v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50953 of 2023 Applicant :- Indraval Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Indraval Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bhatni, District Deoria.

¶4The FIR of the matter was lodged on 06.07.2023 by Birendra Yadav against Girja Devi, Bachhi Devi and Nandu Yadav and some unknown persons alleging therein that his daughter Meena Devi was married to Nandu Yadav on 22.04.2016. The accused persons used to torture and beat her for dowry. On 05.07.2023 at about 01:21 am his daughter was murdered by the accused persons and her dead body was thrown in the river.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the village pradhan. He is not named in the FIR. He is neither relative of the husband of the deceased nor is a family member of the husband of the deceased. It is argued that his name has surfaced during investigation in confessional statement of co-accused Bacchhi Devi given to the police. It is argued that the deceased was married in the year 2016. The applicant had no concern with the life of the deceased, her husband and her in-laws. The implication of the applicant in the present case is false. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.08.2023.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶7After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Bachhi Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased Meena Devi given to the police. The deceased was married to Nandu Yadav in the year 2016. She died in her matrimonial house. The applicant is a village pradhan. The applicant is neither the family member nor a distant relative of the husband of the deceased.

¶8Looking to 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.

¶9Let the applicant Indraval Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

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.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶10The 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.

¶11The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad