—
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2023:AHC:188097
Court No. – 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 15838 of 2022
Applicant :- Gajadhar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar,Shailendra Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.66 of 2021 at Police Station-Bhanwarkol, District-Ghazipur under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 01.06.2021.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 02.11.2021.
The following arguments made by Shri Shailendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant is the husband of the deceased.
2. The applicant never harassed the deceased nor did he demand dowry.
3. The applicant is bereaved by the death of his wife.
4. The deceased was a sensitive lady who was depressed because she was cheated of her jewellery by a shopkeeper.
5. On the fateful day, she succumbed to depression and took the extreme step of ending her life. She committed suicide by hanging.
6. The post mortem report opines that the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
7. Injuries depicted in the post mortem report consistent with hanging are:
(i). Nature of ligature marks.
(ii). No abnormality was detected in the hyoid bone.
8. The children of the applicant and deceased are bereft of their father’s love and guidance on account of the imprisonment of the applicant and have been denied the affection and nurturing of their mother after the death of the deceased.
9. The applicant did not abet or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
10. The prerequisites for attracting the presumption and reversing the burden of proof are not established in the evidences and fact and circumstances of the case.
11. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.
12. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that as per chargesheet, the prosecution proposes to examine 25 witnesses. However, till date only three prosecution witnesses who do not support the demand of dowry have been examined.
13. The trial is moving at a snail’s pace and is not likely to conclude anytime in the near future. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial.
14. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.
15. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
16. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Gajadhar 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
Order Date :- 27.9.2023
Ashish Tripathi