Chandrabhan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11183

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1419 of 2024

Applicant :- Chandrabhan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Baranwal,Onkar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State; Ms. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.0222 of 2023, under Section 376 & 506 IPC, P.S. Dhammaur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the applicant used to meet the informant and on the false pretext of marriage, physical relations were established in between them. Subsequently, the informant became pregnant and it was also alleged that the applicant has refused to marry. The medical on record suggest that the informant was carrying a fetus of 28 to 29 weeks.

¶9

4. In the light of the said, the submission of counsel for the applicant is that the entire case is based upon alleged false pretext of marriage and forming of physical relations.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application by arguing that a child has been delivered to the informant and in the medical report, the name of the father is that of the applicant, and thus, the bail application should be rejected. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Arif v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Criminal Appeal No.1368 of 2023 decided on 30.01.2024 wherein the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the allegation of making sexual relations on the false pretext of marriage and the complaint was sought to be quashed. The

¶11

Supreme Court, considering whether it was a fit case for quashing of criminal proceedings or not, referred the following in Para - 7:

¶12

"7) Now, the question is whether a case for quashing the criminal proceeding is made out. For that purpose, we are referring to the material which forms a part of the charge sheet. In view of the provisions of Section 375 of the IPC, if the victim of the alleged offence of rape is not under 18 years of age, maintaining a sexual relationship with her consent, is not an offence. As held by this Court in the case of Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2019) 13 SCC 1, if the consent of the victim is based on misconception, such consent is immaterial as it is not a voluntary consent. If it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out."

¶13

6. Learned counsel for the informant, thus, argues that considering the law as explained in the case of Sheikh Arif (supra) , the bail application should be rejected.

¶14

7. Learned AGA has also opposed the bail application.

¶15

8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, primarily, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this Court is dealing with a bail application and not quashing of the complaint. In the case referred to by counsel for the informant, the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the issue by holding that if it is established that from inception the consent of the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, it would not amount to consent. In the present case, this issue is to be decided at the time of trial. The law with regard to false promise of marriage is also explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana : (2013) 7 SCC 675 .

¶16

9. As such, considering the fact that the relationship in between the applicant and the informant continued over a span of 22 to 28 weeks allegedly on a false pretext of marriage and after the pregnancy was discovered, the FIR was lodged, thus, considering the law as explained in the case of Deepak Gulati (supra) , a case for bail is made out, particularly, when the applicant is

¶17

in custody since 01.11.2023 and has no criminal history. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶18

10. Let the applicant Chandrabhan Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶19

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶20

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶21

(c) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 nishant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandrabhan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Atul Rai Alias Atul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vikas Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Ravish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Shoaib Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others