Allowed

Prahlad Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2018BAIL/35868/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, the single judge set aside detention. Citing lack of medical evidence and a context suggesting a failed matrimonial alliance rather than serious malice, the court ruled it fit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering and repeating the offence.

Prahlad Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35868 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Prahlad Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Prahlad Yadav, in Case Crime No.494 of 2017, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 406 IPC, and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra.

¶6

Heard Sri N.I Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Raj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix is the first informant in the present case, and, is a matured woman of 30 years. He has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which, on a wholesome reading in every detail of it makes it look evidently, as learned counsel submits, to be a case of a matrimonial alliance conforming to all customs of the community, that did not materialize. It is submitted that it is on account of the failed matrimonial alliance that had proceeded to the stage of publication of invitation cards after fixing of a date of marriage, that the present prosecution has been brought, where somewhere tucked in between, is a casual allegation of rape by the prosecutrix. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is for the said reason that there is an offence under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,which otherwise does not happily go with a charge of rape. It is pointed out that there

¶8

is no medico legal evidence to show that rape was even remotely committed, as there is no external injury seen over the body or any injury to her internal parts. The provisional medical diagnosis shows that "there is no sings (Sic) suggestive of sexual assault". It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the said evidence, it is not at all justified to detain the applicant, pending trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history, and, is in jail since 28.7.2017.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that a reading of the statement of the prosecutrix shows the entire case to be about a failed matrimonial alliance that had advanced to the stage of scheduling of a date of marriage and publication of invitation cards, where the allegation of rape has been tucked in with not much seriousness about it, the fact that there is no medico legal evidence on record to support the charge of rape, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Prahlad Yadav, in Case Crime No.494 of 2017, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 406 IPC, and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.12.2018 NSC

Prahlad Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Gulfan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.

Rajeshwar Prasad Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shivpal Vs State of U.P.