Partly allowed

Abhay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024ABAIL/1615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted interim protection to an applicant facing multiple FIRs including rape and dowry allegations. Recognizing the emergence of late-stage charges without medical corroboration and the applicant's clean record, the court allowed bail pending further proceedings. The applicant must cooperate in investigations and not influence witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted; applicant to be released on bail with personal bond and two sureties in case of arrest.

Abhay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1615 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Abhay Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vijay Vikarm Singh, Advocate on behalf of the applicant, Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and Shri Sayyed Farooq Ahmed, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record. His name shall be shown in the cause list as Counsel for the complainant.

¶7

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.484 of 2023, under Section 376, 406, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

Prosecution case in the First Information Report is that the marriage of the applicant and respondent no.4 was fixed and engagement was done on 12.5.2023. After engagement, on 14.5.2023, the applicant called the informant's elder brother and stated that the items provided seems to be purchased from footpath and many articles have not been given. It has been alleged that after the engagement applicant's father Jagdambika Prasad stated that informant side has not given gold-ring and gold-chain to him and his son in engagement and Variksha. On 20.05.2023, the applicant's sisters had called the informant and asked her to comprehend his brother to fulfill the demand otherwise marriage would not be completed as Abhay has already refused for marriage. They also threatened to get rid of her if she would raise any complaint as they have links to the Police Station and Minister at which informant stated that they have spent as

¶9

many as Rs 7 Lacs in engagement and her mother-brother does not have capacity to spend more. On 03.06.2023, Abhay called the informant near Mr. Brown Husadiya and started becoming angry at her by saying that he is getting promoted as Ticket Examiner and has better girls who can give more dowry in line at which informant asked her engagement-ring and money back. Abhay said that he would not return any article. On 24.06.2023, informant's mother called Abhay's father and said that Abhay does not want to marry. On 25.06.2023 informant's brother sent the articles given by opponents back to them and kept on pursuing the talks for marriage, but, the opponents kept on misbehaving with him and denied for marriage. They also denied to return the articles.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the First Information Report no date of commission of any offence has been mentioned by the informant. While giving statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. improvement has been made by the prosecutrix and for the first time apart from the allegations in the First Information Report the allegation of touching etc. has been made. While recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after several months for the first time allegation of rape has been leveled without there being any corroborative medical evidence or any other evidence. The applicant is an employee of Indian Railways. He has unblemished record. He has no criminal antecedents. Only because the marriage of the applicant could not be solemnized with the victim, an FIR has been lodged only in order to exert pressure on the applicant.

¶11

In support of his arguments learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases reported in (2011)7 SCC 130, Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana; (2016) 1 SCC 152, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and others and Crl. Appeal No.828 of 2020, MANU/UP/2648/2020 Matru vs. State of U.P.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that the conduct of the Investigating Officer in this case was not proper. He had not recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore the victim had to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned court below and ultimately the victim filed an application under Section 482 No.1459 of 2024 before this Court. Vide order dated 1.3.2024

¶13

this Court had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to record the statement of the victim. After intervention of this Court the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded by the concerned court. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed against all the accused persons except the applicant.

¶14

Perused the record so also the order of this Court dated 1.3.2024 (supra).

¶15

Prima facie, it appears that the informant neither in the First Information Report nor while making statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has leveled any allegation of committing rape. While recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after six months for the first time allegation of rape has been leveled. The applicant is an employee of Indian Railway and has no criminal antecedents.

¶16

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, material on record and the fact that at every stage of prosecution case the prosecutrix has introduced new facts and allegations to strengthen her case which is not permissible in view of the judgments (supra), as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Abhay Pratap Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness.

¶19

The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶20

The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶21

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move

¶22

application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶23

Two weeks' time is allowed to learned counsel for the respondents to file Coutner Affidavit, one weeks thereafter for Rejoinder Affidavit.

¶24

List on 21.8.2024.

¶25

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 Madhu

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Committee of Management Gauraiya Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Pratap Singh Alias Jeetu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sonu Alias Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Qayyum @ Kayum and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Danish and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another