Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1570 (ALL)

Sunil Yadav v. State of U. P.

2017-06-29

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2017
JUDGMENT Sri Vipul Pandey, advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Crux content of the background of the case, apart from the allegations made in the first information report, do not make out a case covered under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, for the reason that no specific allegation against the applicant regarding cruelty being perpetrated on the victim has been alleged in the first information report and no such dowry demand as alleged has ever been made on behalf of or by the applicant and he can never be termed to be a beneficiary of the transaction-demand of dowry and cruelty committed pursuant thereto. The applicant has no criminal history in his name, as averred in para 30 of the affidavit appended to the bail application and he is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 11.05.2017. Sri Vipul Pandey, learned brief holder for the informant has narrated the factual aspects of the first information report and has vehemently submitted that the applicant, along with co-accused, hatched conspiracy for committing murder of the informant’s sister, Smt. Beena Yadav, which was tried to be exposed as suicidal death. In this case, the applicant has acted in utter violation of law. Post mortem examination was conducted on the cadaver of the deceased, but it somehow hushed up the prosecution case. An application was moved by the informant side for second post-mortem examination in order to make things clear and bring out the culpability of the accused including the applicant. Since the applicant was acting in collusion with his family members, it cannot be said that the role of the applicant can be distinguished from the other co-accused and he has also joined with husband of the deceased in hatching conspiracy as such. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State also makes it clear in one of its paragraphs that the Investigating Officer concerned from C.B.C.I.D. has recommended action against the then Investigating Officer Sri J.P. Singh, who acted in collusion with the applicant and co-accused. Also heard learned A.G.A. who has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Also heard learned A.G.A. who has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the crux contention raised before this Court that ipso facto the brother-in-law of the victim cannot be a beneficiary of the demand of dowry in the absence of any corroborative material on record, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Sunil Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 369 of 2014, under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Barra, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.