Allowed

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022/8998/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the husband of the victim in a case involving dowry demand, torture, and rape allegations under sections of the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court noted the petitioner's role as the husband, lack of specific involvement attributed to him, absence of external injuries in medical exam, and that other co-accused were granted anticipatory bail, citing settled princ

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond with two sureties, conditions against tampering with witnesses, and attendance for key trial stages.

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey Vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8998 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Bahar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Bahar Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Satyendra Pandey under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 609 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376-D, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri during pendency of the trial.

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 06.07.2021 has been lodged by the victim against the applicant and 7 named relatives and three unknown accused persons stating therein that the marriage of the first informant/ victim was solemnized on 15.05.2021 giving sufficient dowry in the marriage ceremony but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they demanded additional dowry. When the demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled then the applicant and others accused persons started to make cruelty, harassment and mental torture to the deceased and also abused parents of the deceased. On 17.05.2021, the applicant, father-in -law of the victim and Mamia - Sasur of the victim entered into her room and forcibly gang-raped her and thereafter on 19.05.2022, they again gangraped her and then they repeatedly gang-raped the victim in her matrimonial house on various dates.

¶7

After lodging of the first information report, statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.07.2021, Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 06.08.2021 and Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 31.07.20221. As per her medical examination, no external injury was found on the person of the victim. After recording the statement of the first informant/ victim, chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant and 7 named accused persons on 23.07.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is husband of the victim, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per medical examination, no external injury was found on the person of the first informant/ victim. It is general allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicant and no special role or involvement has been attributed against the applicant. It is further submitted that other co-accused Sandeep Pandey and Jai Prakash alias Munna (brother-in-law and maternal father-in -law, Mamia Sasur), having similar allegations, have been granted interim bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.14667 of 2021 on 06.04.2022. It is further submitted that matter pertains to matrimonial dispute.

¶9

He has next argued that the applicant has 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 26.06.2022.

¶10

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 applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

(a) the applicant is husband of the victim;

¶13

(b) general allegation of demand of dowry has been leveled against the applicant ;

¶14

(c) as per medical examination of the first informant/ victim, no external injury was found on the person of the first informant/ victim;

¶15

(d) there is no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant;

¶16

(e) other co-accused Sandeep Pandey and Jai Prakash, (brotherin-law and maternal father-in -law, Mamia Sasur), having similar allegations, have been granted interim bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.14667 of 2021 on 06.04.2022 and the matter pertains to

¶17

matrimonial dispute.

¶18

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, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶19

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.

¶20

Let applicant, Satyendra Pandey 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:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) The applicant 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 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(vi) The applicant 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 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 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 :- 21.9.2022 aks

¶33

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.26 16:52:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Faruk Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Moorti Verma @ Pooja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Sahai Verma Vs State of U.P. through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.