Allahabad High Court
Anil Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101520
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6854 of 2023
Applicant :- Anil Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 81 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is the husband of the deceased Anita Yadav, who was married with the applicant prior to two years of the incident. It is submitted that the deceased sustained burn injuries since she was cooking food on a kerosene stove. The applicant never made any demand of dowry or treated her with cruelty for additional demand. It is also submitted that during trial PW-1 Vijay Prakash and PW-2 Muthuna, who happens to be the father and mother of the deceased respectively, did not corroborate the prosecution version during their cross examination and categorically denied all the allegations made in the first information report. Apart from it PW-3 Renu (sister) PW-4 Parashuram and PW-5 Malti are declared hostile since they were also not corroborating the prosecution version. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 09.04.2020 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Anil Yadav in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
Mohit
