Dismissed

Ravi Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023ABAIL/2515/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by an applicant accused of rape. The court found that despite a prior relationship, the occurrence of rape against the informant's will established the offence under Section 376 IPC, warranting bail denial.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected; no bail granted.

Ravi Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2515 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Pratap Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Bhoodev Yadav,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Bhan

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2022, under Sections, 376, 452, 504, 506 of the I.P.C., Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.

¶7

The facts in brief are that the applicant is Bhumisanrakshak Adhikari in Agricultural Department and the informant was completing the course of ANM. The applicant came into contact with the informant and took her mobile number in the hospital Swarup Rani, Allahabad. Thereafter, he started talking with the informant On 07.11.2021 at about 8.00 pm in the night he came in the room of the informant where she was alone and committed rape with her regarding which this F.I.R. was lodged by the informant.

¶8

It is submitted that in this case, the applicant was in relation with the informant prior to the alleged incident and no any cry was made by the informant at the time of commission of rape with her.

¶9

It is also submitted that the applicant has promised to marry with her but later on, he was married to some other women that was the reason this F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant only for making pressure on him.

¶10

Since, she was living with the applicant and physical relation was established with her, therefore, no case under Section 376 I.P.C. 120 is made out against him. The matter being under investigation, there is apprehension of arrest by the Police, so request for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer as aforesaid and urged that in this case, the informant was not living with the applicant nor in relationship but there was conversation between both of them and this applicant said to her that he would marry with her,

¶12

then, he came in the room of the informant and committed rape with her even on her refusal, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is not made out.

¶13

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA, no ground appears to grant relief in favour of applicant.

¶14

Therefore, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 12.1.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Pratap 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahtab Amad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Tiwari @ Jitendra Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P.

Satish Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Safi Vs State of U.P. and Another