Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13631 of 2019 Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 387 of 2016, under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Shivkuti, District- Allahabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of deceased Archana. Marriage between the deceased and the applicant was solemnized in the month of April, 2014. The deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on 21.11.2016. The applicant gave information about the incident to her parents on the same day as well as to the police. However, the father of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. falsely alleging that the applicant and his family members were demanding a LCD T.V. and a gold chain as additional dowry and used to maltreat her on account of non-fulfilment of the aforesaid demand of dowry. There is no recital in the F.I.R. that soon before the deceased committed suicide, she was maltreated or tortured by the applicant or his family members for demand of additional dowry made by them to her and hence, the essential ingredient which constitutes the offence u/s 304-B is conspicuous by its absence in the present case. He lastly submitted the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 24.11.2016, is entitled to be released on bail.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Rahul Yadav be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 387 of 2016, under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Shivkuti, District- Allahabad, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the informant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 KS