Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48463 of 2017 Applicant :- Yogesh Tyagi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Somya Chaturvedi,Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Counter affidavit on behalf of the State and rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the applicant filed today in Court are taken on record.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Yogesh Tyagi in Case Crime No.190 of 2017, under Section 306 I.P.C, P.S. Sainya, District Agra.
Hear Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.A.S. Abidi, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant is to the effect that there is no positive and tangible evidence of any such inducement or aid to commit suicide by the applicant as may make out a case under Section 306 IPC; that in fact the deceased did not commit suicide but became the victim of a train accident when she left home in the morning hours to go over to her parents' place; that there was on way a railway track which had to be crossed where she met with an accident coming under the wheels of a train; that learned Senior Advocate has invited the attention of the Court to the inquest report, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit where her father Sobran Singh, her cousin Anil Kumar and other relatives are amongst the Panch witnesses who have expressed their opinion in the words "ham panchon ki ray me mritika Smt. Asha w/o Yogesh Tyagi Ni. Tyagi Mohalla Maniya Dhaulpur Rajasthan ki mrityu train durghatna me aayee choton ke karan hui hai. Fir bhi mrityu ka sahi karan janne ke lie post-mortem kara liya jay."; that the FIR with the present story of abetment to suicide has been lodged four days after the event and expressing a different opinion by the father and other relatives of the deceased than that in the Panchnama which is an opportunistic measure based on extraneous considerations purely an afterthought with no truth to it; that it is further submitted that the place of occurrence is 15 k.ms. away from the matrimonial home of parties and a busy public place which is circumstantially not compatible with a place that a person would choose to commit suicide; that the place of occurrence in itself makes the incident the case of railway accident ex facie; that there is no evidence eliuende of any witness saying that he saw the deceased commit suicide by jumping before the oncoming train whereas in case it was suicide there would be witnesses to that effect; that the marriage between parties is twelve years old; that routine matrimonial bickerings between the parties that are the wear and tear of any marriage cannot be dubbed as abetment; that the evidence of the parties daughter that the applicant had an exchange of heated words with her mother about the issue of not bearing a male child in itself is not something that would constitute instigation or aid within the meaning of Section 107 IPC; that evidence about quarrel between the husband and wife about the issue of a male child is no more than a tailor made statement put in the mouth of witnesses by the police that is far from truth; that assuming that there were anxious moments and some quarrel between the parties in the twelve years old marriage over their inability to have a male issue cannot lead to the conclusion ipso facto that the applicant abetted his wife to commit suicide in the absence of any tangible evidence to that effect which is utterly wanting in the instant case; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 23.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to the statement of the parties daughter who has spoken of her father quarrelling with her mother often about the issue of not having a male child and about her mother leaving the matrimonial home to go over to her parents; that he has also taken the Court through statements of other witnesses who have blamed the applicant quarrelling with his wife some times making her leave home over the issue of not bearing a male child but all those statements in themselves do not constitute evidence of any such instigation or aid as may amount to abetment under Section 306 IPC prima facie; and, that the applicant having tortured his wife over the issue of a male child has certainly committed the offence of abetment.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail adopting the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant largely put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant. However, neither the learned counsel for the complainant or the learned AGA have been able to point out the evidence of any person who may have testified to having seen the deceased commit suicide by jumping before the oncoming train.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing in the matter, the age of marriage between the parties, the place of occurrence, the acknowledgement, in particular, the statement of father of the victim in the inquest that it was an accident but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
It is made clear that anything said here will not affect the rights of the parties for prejudice their case at the trial in any manner.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Yogesh Tyagi involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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.
v) 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 such person from disclosing 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 complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Shahroz