Allowed

Pradeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secretariat, Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022/10966/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of the applicant, Pradeep Singh, charged with offences under IPC Sections 376, 498-A, and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, referring to relevant appellate precedents while imposing strict conditions to prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release of Pradeep Singh on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions prohibiting witness intimidation and ensuring prompt tr

Pradeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10966 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secretariat, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Nath Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Pradeep Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 745 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station- Kotwali Sadar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 03.07.2022 has been lodged by the victim against her husband, brother-in-law (Dever) and the father-in-law of the victim stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the co-accused Sarvesh Singh on 20.06.2021 as per Hindu Rites and Ritual and in the marriage ceremony, her mother spent more than her capacity. but her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage ceremony and demanded Rs. 5 lacs and one Car as an additional dowry to which victim told that her father is not alive, hence, her mother is unable to fulfill their demand of additional dowry. In the month of October, 2021, victim became pregnant being cohabited by her husband. During the period of pregnancy, applicant and her father-in-law threatened her on 06.01.2022 at 9.00 p.m that if the additional dowry demand is not met, they will kill the child in womb and on her objection being raised, the applicant sought advice from his brother Savesh Singh, husband of the victim and on his instruction, they assaulted the victim due to which her miscarriage took place. On 30.01.2022 at about 11.00 p.m., the applicant raped her and threatened her to kill, if revealed to anyone. Thereafter on 03.02.2022, mother of the victim arrived at her matrimonial house and took her back..

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, statements of victim under section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C., have been recorded on 12.07.2022 and 28.07.2022 respectively, medical examination of the victim was conducted on 13.07.2022. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses as well other witnesses, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other accused persons on 18.08.2022 under different sections of I.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, brother-in-law (Dever) of the victim, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that age of the victim is 22 years. It is further submitted that F.I.R has been lodged after six months of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that as per statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the present applicant raped her in the month of December, 2021 and January, 2022 but the incident of December, 2021 is not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that on 05.03.2022, victim filed a Maintenance Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband and on 05.04.2022, co-accused Sarvesh Singh, husband of the victim filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the victim. It is further submitted that the present matter relating to matrimonial dispute are pending between the victim and co-accused Sarvesh Singh due to which, the applicant has been implicated. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 .

¶10

He has next argued that the applicant have no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2022.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicants are released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶13

(a) The applicant is brother -in-law of the victim aged about 12

¶14

years;

¶15

(b) F.I.R. in question has been lodged after six month of the alleged incident ;

¶16

(c) Matrimonial disputes are pending between the victim and brother of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent court;

¶17

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, their roles and involvement in the offence, their involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶18

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 , Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicants, Pradeep Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section

¶23

313 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶26

(vi) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicants ares 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 in accordance with law.

¶28

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶29

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶30

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶31

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶32

Order Date :- 23.9.2022

¶33

aks

¶34

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.26 16:51:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pradeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secretariat, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secretariat, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waseer Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aleem @ Chhotu @ Aleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Ors.

Shiv Charan Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Kaushlendra Alias Atul Vs State of U.P Secy. Home

Dharmendra Sigh Vs State of U.P.

Hasruddin Ansari @ Bauna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.