Ashish Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13105 of 2023 Applicant :- Ashish Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- R.B.S. Rathaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶1Shri Prashant Agrawal and Shri Rupesh Kumar Kasaudhan, Advocates have filed their 'vakalatnama' on behalf of the complainant/informant, the same is taken on record.

¶2Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶3Heard Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Shri Rupesh Kumar Kasaudhan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Ashish Chaurasiya for grant of bail, in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0306 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Asandra, District Barabanki, during trial.

¶5Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶6It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons are to the tune that they were treating the deceased with cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry, who had died a little after three years of her marriage with the brother of the applicant and the applicant was also instrumental in demanding Rs. 10 lacs and a 'four wheeler'.

¶7Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that general role of demand of dowry and committing cruelty in lieu thereof has been attributed to all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and no overt act or any specific allegation has been levelled against the instant applicant.

¶8It is further submitted that applicant was living separately from his brother Rahul (husband of the deceased) and is also running a separate business in the name of Shri Balaji Traders, a copy of the registration certificate of the same has been placed at Page No.65 of the paper book in order to show that since the marriage of the deceased with the brother of the applicant, the applicant is not having any concern with their affairs and they were living separately.

¶9While drawing the attention of this Court towards a copy of the 'ration card' of the applicant as well as of the husband of the deceased placed at Page No. 60 and 61 of the paper book, it is submitted that the applicant is the 'brother-in-law' (devar) of the deceased and he by any stretch of imagination may not be the beneficiary of dowry, which could only be received by the husband of the deceased.

¶10It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 01.08.2023 and he is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12Shri Rupesh Kumar Kasaudhan, learned counsel for the complainant/informant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the business of the applicant as well as of the husband of the deceased is one and same and Rs. 10 lacs were being demanded for up gradation of the business and it could not be said that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the dowry, which was being demanded from the deceased.

¶13It is also highlighted that an observation has been made by the investigating officer in the case diary having regard to the C.C.T.V. footage where the family members of the applicant and applicant are seen taking the body of the deceased out of the house and then a little after taking the the same back to their house in order show that they had taken the deceased for some treatment and it is vehemently submitted that having regard to the fact that applicant was instrumental in committing cruelty with the deceased in lieu of demand of dowry, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the deceased had died a little after three years of her marriage with the brother of the applicant. Applicant admittedly is the 'devar' (brother-in-law) of the deceased. Separate living has been claimed and it is also submitted that the husband of the deceased as well as the applicant were/are running separate businesses having distinct entity. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. In the viscera report, 'aluminum phosphide' has been found. Thus, the deceased appears to have died by consumation of poisonous substance. The defence of the applicant appears to be that he is the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased and was living separately running a distinct and separate business and he may not be the beneficiary of the dowry, which was being allegedly demanded. Separate living has also been claimed. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 01.08.2023 without any criminal antecedents and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions and the apprehension, which has been shown by learned counsel for the complainant/informant with regard to the security of the witnesses, may also be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. In result, in the considered opinion of this Court, the facility of bail may safely be extended to the applicant. The bail application is thus allowed.

¶15Let the accused/applicant-Ashish Chaurasiya 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:-

(i) The applicant shall not attempt to make contact with the informant either directly or indirectly or through any social platform or with any of the prosecution witnesses and in this regard, shall file an undertaking in writing before the trial Court.

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

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

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

¶16In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Praveen High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench