Allahabad High Court
Manoj Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 26 September, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157903 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36998 of 2023 Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Hanuman Deen Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Sri Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 431 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 on the ground that however, applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but there is no evidence on record, which can show that he resided separately from the deceased and her husband and post-mortem report of the deceased suggest that deceased died due to strangulation but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that actually applicant resided separately from the deceased and her husband and this fact could not be properly placed before this Court at the time of first bail application of the applicant.
4. He further submitted that from the rejoinder affidavit dated 04.09.2024, it reflects that applicant resided separately from the deceased and her husband. He further submitted that along with the rejoinder affidavit, photocopy of the parivar register has been annexed and from the parivar register, it appears that applicant resided in the House No.19 while father-in-law of the deceased resided along with deceased and her husband in House No.34A.
5. He further submitted that even in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 26.05.2023 i.e. for last more than a year and till date, out of total 38 witnesses of the charge sheet only one witness could be examined and therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.
6. He further submitted that even before marriage of the deceased, applicant resided abroad and he returned back to India about 4 months before from the alleged incident and this fact is evident from his passport, which has been annexed at page no.54 of the paper book and therefore, allegation with regard to demand of dowry levelled against the applicant is totally false. He further submitted that therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be released on bail.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and after considering the fact that deceased died due to strangulation, his first bail application was dismissed. He further submitted that admittedly at the time of alleged incident, applicant was in India and witnesses stated that applicant was present in the house of the deceased at the time of incident, therefore, in such type of matter, only on the ground that accused is in jail for last more than a year, he should not be released on bail.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit after considering the fact that applicant is although Jeth of the deceased but it is a case of strangulation and there is no evidence on record, which can show that applicant resided separately from the deceased but along with the rejoinder affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, applicant has annexed the photocopy of the parivar register, which shows that he was residing separately along with his family members and father-in-law of the deceased resided along with the deceased and her husband in separate house and genuineness of the parivar register, filed along with the rejoinder affidavit, has not been controverted by Learned AGA.
10. Further, considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than a year, a report was called from the court concerned with regard to status of trial and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, court concerned submitted its report, which is on record and flagged as 'A' and from the report of the District Judge, concerned, it reflects that on 18.10.2023, the case was committed to the Court of Session and on 28.11.2023, charges were framed but only on 17.09.2024 i.e. after 10 months, statement of P.W.1 was recorded that is too after issuance of bailable warrant against him and since then no other prosecution witness could be further examined and therefore, till date, only one prosecution witness could be examined out of total 38 witnesses of the charge sheet, therefore, it appears that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.
11. The Apex Court in case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari [2024 SCC Online SC 1755] categorically held that even if allegations are serious on the ground of prolonged incarceration, an accused can be released on bail.
12. Further, from the record it also reflects that even before marriage of the deceased, applicant had gone to abroad and he returned back to India about 4 months before from the alleged incident and therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that allegations levelled against the applicant with regard to demand of dowry immediately after the marriage appears to be false, cannot be completely ruled out.
13. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant- Manoj Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 26.9.2024 KK Patel