Allowed

Pradeep Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023ABAIL/8150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Pradeep Yadav, a husband falsely accused of rape by his wife, who lodged the FIR under parental pressure to harass the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties on the given conditions.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189307

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8150 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar,Chandra Prakash Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Applicant- Pradeep Yadav and opposite party no.2 Pooja Yadav (wife of the applicant) are present in person before this Court and duly identified by their counsel. They stated before this court that they have solemnized marriage with each other and there is no dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that they have applied for the on-line registration of the marriage and the certificate is awaited.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that the parties have solemnized marriage with each other and there is no dispute left between the party, they are living as husband and wife. He further submitted that applicant has never committed rape upon her, he never made any threat to her but the victim lodged the false FIR on the pressure of her father only to harass the applicant. He further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and as per statement of the victim before this Court that the present FIR lodged against the applicant is fully false and as such the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statement of the victim given before this Court that the victim has solemnized marriage with the applicant on her own sweet will, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶9

Let the applicant- Pradeep Yadav , involved in the Case Crime No.76 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Parasrampur, District- Basti be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶11

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶12

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶13

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶14

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶15

(vii) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶16

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informantcomplainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed .

¶18

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Krishna*

¶19

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Nawab Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheshmani Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Thakur @ Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Puja Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another