Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40053 of 2021
Applicant :- Raj Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Yadava
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State.
2. This bail application has been filed by applicant, Raj Kumar Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.235 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
3. Perused the record.
4. Record shows that marriage of Manita, sister of first informant was solemnized with Raj Kumar Yadav, the applicant herein, in the year 2010. From the aforesaid wedlock two children namely, Kritika and Kartik were born. Unfortunately, on 27.07.2021 sister of first informant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The information regarding aforesaid incident was given at the concerned police station by Ajay Yadav (brother of the deceased). On the aforesaid information inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), nature of death of deceased was suicidal. Thereafter, the postmortem of body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, autopsy surgeon did not find any other external or internal antemortem injury on body of the deceased.
5. After about five days of the occurrence, the first informant, Ajay Yadav (brother of the deceased) lodged an FIR dated 01.08.2021 which was registered as Case Crime No.0235 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur. In the aforesaid FIR five persons namely, Rajkumar (husband), Vinay Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, Smt. Kusum Yadav and Smt. Anila Yadav have been nominated as named accused.
6. After lodging of the aforementioned FIR, investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. The statement of first informant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. On the basis of above and the other material collected during course of investigation, investigating officer came to the conclusion that complicity of only one of the named accused namely, Raj Kumar (husband of the deceased) is established. He, therefore, submitted the charge-sheet dated 22.09.2021, whereby the applicant alone has been charge-sheeted under Section 306 IPC whereas rest of the named accused have been exculpated.
7. Ms. Tanish Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the applicant contends that though applicant is the husband of the deceased and he is not only a named accused but also a chargedsheeted accused yet he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in the FIR with regard to commission of cruelty upon the deceased by applicant and others are false and concocted. To buttress her submission she submits that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2010. However, in the interregnum i.e. a period of ten years no complaint was lodged by first informant nor any criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant in respect of the criminality alleged to have been committed upon the deceased. She further submits that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she had taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The bona fide of the applicant is also explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark, no other internal or external antemortem injury was found on body of the deceased. From the wedlock of the applicant with the deceased, two children were born, who are still very young. In such circumstances there could not be any reason for the applicant to commit the alleged crime. Referring to the material on record learned counsel for applicant contends that from the material collected by the investigating officer during course of investigation it cannot be definitely concluded that applicant has abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of the alleged crime. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 04.08.2021. Resultantly, he has undergone more than eight months of incarceration. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
8. Learned counsel for applicant has then referred to paragraph-9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866. On the basis of above, she submits that the occurrence in question occurred on 27.07.2021. Referring to the inquest report of the deceased, she submits that first informant is a witness of inquest yet the FIR was lodged with a delay of five days. However, the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained either in the FIR itself nor in the statement of first informant as recorded under Section 161 CrPC. She, therefore, contends that once the delay in lodging the FIR itself has not been explained, the prosecution of the applicant cannot be maintained. On the cumulative strength of above learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
9. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the application for bail. He contends that applicant is the husband of deceased. He is not only a named accused but also a chargesheeted accused. As such, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
11. Accordingly, present bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant, Raj Kumar Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his 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) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) 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) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
13. The 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 of applicant and send him to prison.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022
Shahroz
