Dismissed

Vasudev Maurya and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023ABAIL/5358/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a retired doctor and his brother-in-law in a domestic dispute involving allegations of harassment and unauthorized physical relations. The court held that ground for bail was not made out after the charge-sheet was submitted.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected in view of charge-sheet submission and lack of grounds to be released.

Vasudev Maurya and Another 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. - 5358 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vasudev Maurya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachida Nand Tiwari,Murli Dhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lal Chandra Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned learned AGA for the State and perused on record.

¶6

Facts in brief are that the informant is daughter in law of applicant No. 1 Vasudev Maurya and other applicant is husband of the informant. In the F.I.R. the allegation of harassment was made against these applicants by the informant and also it was alleged that intoxicating injection was being administered by the applicant No. 1 Vasudev Maurya who is a retired doctor and thereafter, physical relation was also made by him. On previous occasion she was taken to her Sasural as a result of settlement of dispute in mediation but again she was subjected to harassment and demand of dowry was also made. In the statement of the informant, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged that the applicant No. 1 Vasudev Maurya was establishing physical relation again and again with her. She also reiterated the allegation of administrating intoxicated injection to her thereafter to commit Maar Peet.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case, the allegations made by the informant are vague and false. The applicant No. 1 is not a retired doctor but was working in health department and now he is retired from the service. Being Sasur of the informant he has been roped in this case, though it is unnatural to say that he would commit rape with her. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. there is no version of rape but during course of investigation, improvement in the statement of the victim/informant was made and she alleged about committing rape by this applicant No. 1. It is also submitted that in this case, the suit under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed by the husband of the informant but she is not willing to come and live with husband. Investigation is going on and there is apprehension of imminent arrest against the applicants, therefore, requested for anticipatory bail. In case he is released on bail he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would

¶8

cooperate with the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer as aforesaid. It is urged by learned counsel for the opposite party that in this case after conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted and there is allegation of rape by the Sasur Vasudev Maurya (applicant No. 1) against the informant who is Bahu. The other applicant is husband. The informant was subjected to harassment and also administered intoxicating injection by the applicant No. 1 Vasudev Maurya who was retired employee of health department. It is also urged that the matter was referred to mediation but the applicants did not cooperate with the proceedings of mediation that was the reason it failed. On the previous occasion before the learned Trial Court matter was sent to the mediation and settlement was done and the informant was taken to the house of the applicants but again she was subjected to harassment.

¶10

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perusal of record and without making any comment on the merit of case, there appears no ground is made out in favour of the applicants, therefore, this anticipatory bail is rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶12

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

Vasudev Maurya and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudev Maurya and Another 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

Shyam Sundar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Omveer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chanda Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Javed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another