Allahabad High Court
Upendra Alias Opendra Yadav S/O ... vs The State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5684 of 2022
Applicant :- Upendra Alias Opendra Yadav S/O Raj Kishor
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bux Rawat,Archana Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
This case is taken up in the revised call.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 293 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant, is not even the beneficiary of motorcycle allegedly demanded; that neither is there a dying declaration against the applicant nor there is any eye witness account of the incident; that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is strangulation; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant; and that the applicant has no concern with the incident at all and that he has been implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that he happens to be the Jeth of the deceased. It has been informed that Munendra, the husband of the deceased, is already in jail.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from perusal of the first information report as well as the statement recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveal that no role has been ascribed to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that similarly circumstanced and identically placed other co-accused, namely Malti Devi, mother-in-law and Raj Kishore, father-in-law of the deceased have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide its orders dated 01.02.2021 and 19.07.2021 passed in Bail No. 6379 of 2020 and Bail No. 6233 of 2020 respectively and the case of the applicant is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused who has already granted bail by this Court, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered and he should also be released on bail on principles of parity.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 26 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 26.04.2022 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute this fact that similarly circumstanced and identically placed other co-accused, namely Malti Devi, mother-in-law and Raj Kishore, father-in-law of the deceased have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the applicant is not the beneficiary of motorcycle allegedly demanded and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and similarly circumstanced and identically placed other co-accused, namely Malti Devi, mother-in-law and Raj Kishore, father-in-law of the deceased have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Upendra @ Opendra Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 293 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(6) The applicant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
Mustaqeem/Arvind
