Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11254 of 2018 Applicant :- Yogendra @ Ovind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, his appearance is taken on record.
This is an application filed on behalf of Yogendra @ Ovind in Case Crime No.256 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 306 I.P.C., P.S. Merapur, District Farrukhabad.
Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is a brother-in-law (Devar) to the deceased; that the applicant has been living separately of the deceased and her husband as asserted in paragraph nos. 14 and 17 of the affidavit; that there are general allegations against the entire family with no specific role being assigned to the applicant; that the case was initially registered under Section 302 I.P.C. and was subsequently converted to Sections 498A, 306 I.P.C; that there is no evidence of abetment against the applicant whatsoever; that whatever happened was the result of issues between the husband and wife which the applicant gathered was a dispute over proposal of the husband to sell off a buffalo given to the wife by her father and certain ornaments to enable the husband to buy a tractor which enraged the wife to an extent that she committed suicide; that the fact that the death is suicidal would be evident from a perusal of the autopsy which shows the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 16.12.2017.
Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail with the submission that in the marriage of eleven years the deceased was often tortured by the husband and that he was bent upon selling off her ornaments on the pretext of buying a tractor that drove the deceased to take the extreme step besides other factors that were leading to a build up of uncontrollable emotions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the brother-in-law being a male member in the house could have effectively prevented the mishappening coming by but he did not ensure the safety and security of his sister-in-law. As such, he is not entitled to bail.
Learned AGA has also opposed the plea for bail adopting the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the evidence appearing in the case but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Yogendra @ Ovind involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two-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 :- 28.3.2018 Deepak