High Court

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Virendra Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 180 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Binwar, District Hamirpur.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 30.06.2024 by Smt. Mamta wife of Gajraj Singh against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that marriage of her daughter Sapna was solemnized with Virendra the applicant on 22.06.2018. After marriage the accused persons were demanding additional dowry of Rs. 2 lakh cash and used to torture and harass her daughter. On 21.05.2024 she was also thrown out of the house for dowry after which Rs. 30,000/- was given and then she was called in her matrimonial house. On 24.05.2024 her daughter called her on phone and told her that the accused persons are planning to kill her due to non fulfillment of dowry. Subsequently, on 25.05.2024 nand of her daughter called her on phone that her daughter died. Report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 22.06.2018 after which on 24.05.2024 she died. It is submitted that after death of the wife of the applicant, an information was given by Motilal Yadav the father-in-law of the deceased at the police station about the deceased committing suicide which has been transcribed in GD No. 2 dated 26.05.2024 at 00:18 hrs at Police Station Binwar, District Hamirpur. It is submitted that even the family members of the deceased were informed who were present at the time of inquest and other people were also present on last rites ceremony. It is submitted that Gajraj Singh the father of the deceased was present at the time of inquest of the deceased as is evident from the fact that Gajraj Singh is a witness of the inquest which is at Serial No. 2 in the list of witnesses. It is submitted that subsequently the FIR has been lodged on 30.06.2024 which is after 37 days of the alleged incident without any plausible explanation. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein the doctor found single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. It is submitted that co-accused Motilal Yadav and Smt. Vidhya @ Vidhyabai have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.11.2024 and 25.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 42220 of 2024 (Motilal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and43158 of 2024 (Smt. Vidhya @ Vidhyabai Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 11 and 12 respectively to the affidavit. Further, while placing para 19 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant and the deceased were leading happy married life which is evident from the fact that from the wedlock a girl child was born who as of now is aged about 4 years. Further, while placing para 22 and 23 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant had sustained serious injuries in a road accident and had become unable to perform matrimonial obligations and thus the same was the reason for frustration of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 the affidavit and is in jail since 10.07.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and the cause of death is unnatural but could not dispute the fact that the FIR has been lodged after 37 days of the alleged incident and even the said co- accused have been granted bail.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The FIR was lodged after 37 days of the alleged incident. Information was given by the father-in-law of the deceased at the police station about her committing suicide. Motilal Yadav the father-in-law of the deceased and Gajraj Singh the father of the deceased were present at the time of inquest. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Motilal Yadav and Smt. Vidhya @ Vidhyabai have been granted bail by this Court.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant Virendra Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. 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 and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Virendra Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 180 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Binwar, District Hamirpur.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 30.06.2024 by Smt. Mamta wife of Gajraj Singh against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that marriage of her daughter Sapna was solemnized with Virendra the applicant on 22.06.2018. After marriage the accused persons were demanding additional dowry of Rs. 2 lakh cash and used to torture and harass her daughter. On 21.05.2024 she was also thrown out of the house for dowry after which Rs. 30,000/- was given and then she was called in her matrimonial house. On 24.05.2024 her daughter called her on phone and told her that the accused persons are planning to kill her due to non fulfillment of dowry. Subsequently, on 25.05.2024 nand of her daughter called her on phone that her daughter died. Report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 22.06.2018 after which on 24.05.2024 she died. It is submitted that after death of the wife of the applicant, an information was given by Motilal Yadav the father-in-law of the deceased at the police station about the deceased committing suicide which has been transcribed in GD No. 2 dated 26.05.2024 at 00:18 hrs at Police Station Binwar, District Hamirpur. It is submitted that even the family members of the deceased were informed who were present at the time of inquest and other people were also present on last rites ceremony. It is submitted that Gajraj Singh the father of the deceased was present at the time of inquest of the deceased as is evident from the fact that Gajraj Singh is a witness of the inquest which is at Serial No. 2 in the list of witnesses. It is submitted that subsequently the FIR has been lodged on 30.06.2024 which is after 37 days of the alleged incident without any plausible explanation. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein the doctor found single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. It is submitted that co-accused Motilal Yadav and Smt. Vidhya @ Vidhyabai have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.11.2024 and 25.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 42220 of 2024 (Motilal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and43158 of 2024 (Smt. Vidhya @ Vidhyabai Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 11 and 12 respectively to the affidavit. Further, while placing para 19 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant and the deceased were leading happy married life which is evident from the fact that from the wedlock a girl child was born who as of now is aged about 4 years. Further, while placing para 22 and 23 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant had sustained serious injuries in a road accident and had become unable to perform matrimonial obligations and thus the same was the reason for frustration of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 the affidavit and is in jail since 10.07.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and the cause of death is unnatural but could not dispute the fact that the FIR has been lodged after 37 days of the alleged incident and even the said co- accused have been granted bail.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The FIR was lodged after 37 days of the alleged incident. Information was given by the father-in-law of the deceased at the police station about her committing suicide. Motilal Yadav the father-in-law of the deceased and Gajraj Singh the father of the deceased were present at the time of inquest. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Motilal Yadav and Smt. Vidhya @ Vidhyabai have been granted bail by this Court.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant Virendra Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. 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 and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)