High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38386 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31714 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Anil Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Srivastava,Seema Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Tiwari,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure/483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Anil Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 15 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Nonaharar, District Ghazipur. 4. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 29.01.2024 by Radhey Shyam Yadav against the applicant and five other persons on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that his daughter Seema Yadav was married to Anil Yadav the present applicant around four years back in the year 2017. In the marriage as per his status, he had given one lakh cash, motorcycle, colour TV, Sofa-set, bed, gold and silver ornaments, utensils etc. In marriage Anil Yadav and his family members demanded Rs. 2 lakh as cash but Rs. 1 lakh could not be given to them to which they were angry. Due to non fulfillment of the remaining demand of Rs. 1 lakh, the accused persons used to taunt, abuse and assault his daughter and she was not even given food. She was tortured by them. They threatened her for life. The acts of the accused were told by his daughter to his wife who told her that if their demands are not fulfilled they would murder her. The informant and his wife used to console his daughter. In the meantime, two children were born from the wedlock but the accused persons did not stop their torture and assault for dowry. Many times, the informant along with other people discussed the matter with the accused persons and told them that he has not yet paid the loan of the marriage and is unable to fulfill the demand of Rs. 1 lakh. On 12.12.2021, the accused persons assaulted his daughter and threw her out of the house for their demand of Rs. 1 lakh for dowry. His daughter gave an information to him on which he told them that he does not have money with him. He told his daughter to ask for money from Umesh Yadav her foofa. Umesh Yadav then immediately transferred Rs. 10,000/- in the account of Anil Yadav but the family was not satisfied with it. The deceased was told by the accused that the remaining amount be immediately paid otherwise it would not be proper. On 22.12.2021 in the morning he received an information that Seema has died. He immediately went to the place of occurrence. The inquest and postmortem of the body of Seema was conducted. The accused persons due to non fulfillment of dowry have murdered her. He moved an application before the concerned police station but no action was taken. He then sent an application through registered post to the SSP but no action was taken. Then an application dated 27.01.2022 was moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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 body of the deceased was found in a room which was broken and then the body was taken out. It is submitted that the deceased was leading happy married life with her husband as would appear from the fact that two children were born from the wedlock. It is submitted that although the suicide note was recovered but the same does not state of any demand of dowry being asked for. It is submitted that information about the incident was given by the father-in-law to the informant. It is further submitted that co-accused Kusum Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18904 of 2024 (Kusum Devi Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is further submitted that the other co-accused persons namely Smt. Usha, Shilpi and Soni are concerned they filed writ petition before this Court for quashing of the present FIR in which vide order dated 15.04.2024 of a Division Bench of this Court has stayed their arrest till the next date of listing or till cognizance is taken on the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the court concerned in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5707 of 2024 (Smt. Usha and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is also taken on record. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 29.03.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died within four years of marriage in her matrimonial house. It is submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. It is further submitted that the FIR and the prosecution version goes to show that there has been demand of dowry continuously by the applicant and other accused persons and even some part of the money was paid by the relative of the informant in the bank account of the applicant but still a major portion of the amount remained pending to be paid. It is submitted that the death of the deceased is unnatural. It is further submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. It is submitted that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 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 deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage and the death is unnatural. The prosecution version clearly states of continuous demand of dowry, torture and harassment of the deceased by the applicant and co- accused persons. The issue was even previously tried to be settled by the first informant along with other family members but the same was not settled. Relative of the first informant had transferred some money to satisfy the demand of dowry in the bank account of the applicant. The co-accused who has been granted bail was the mother-in-law and the other co-accused who have been granted stay of arrest are also the relatives of the applicant and as such their cases stand distinguishable with that of the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 M. ARIF Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Samit Gopal, J.)