Mohit Kalia v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2025NABAIL/462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS regarding allegations of rape, threats, and dowry demands, the Allahabad High Court granted interim bail to the applicant, considering his young age, lack of criminal record, and conflicting accounts of the marriage negotiation failure.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bail bond and two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Mohit Kalia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28557

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 462 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohit Kalia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vanshraj Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saket Anand, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Vaibhav Upadhyay, Advocate who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/complainant, which is taken on record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail for the applicant in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 646 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506, 120-B I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 31.12.2024 on the basis of an application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C against the applicant, his father and mother, stating that the informant/complainant's marriage had got settled with the applicant and her father had booked the wedding venue by paying Rs. 1 lakh on 12.02.2023; the applicant came to Lucknow, pressurized her to go with him to a hotel and there he made physical relations with her. Thereafter, the applicant threatened the complainant that if she would disclose this fact to any person, he would break the matrimonial alliance. After sometime, all the accused persons started demanding dowry and the complainant's father transferred Rs.3 lakhs to the bank account of the applicant and his parents and he paid Rs. 5 lakh cash and some jewellery. It is alleged that the applicant came to Lucknow and threatened to spread the obscene photos of the complainant virally. The complainant somehow saved herself and reached home, but she did not disclosed this incident to her parents at that time. However, she declined to marry the applicant.

¶8

The complainant alleged that the applicant's mother had threatened to spread the obscene photographs virally. She also alleged that the family members of the applicant have

¶9

threatened the complainant's father that their son had done all those things which are done after the marriage and now they may do whatever they wanted to do.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶11

Photocopies of numerous WhatsApp communications between the complainant and the applicant have been annexed with the anticipatory bail application from which it appears that they had developed a loving relationship between them.

¶12

A copy of report dated 29.01.2024 submitted by the Station In-Charge, Crime Branch, Bhopal to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhopal has been annexed with the anticipatory bail application as per which the complainant's father has submitted a complaint to Bhopal police. It came to light during investigation held upon to that complaint that the marriage of the complainant and the applicant had got settled through a matrimonial website; wedding venue had been booked. After engagement, applicant and the complainant used to talk through phone, but their mutual compatibility could not be established and, therefore, both the families resiled from the marriage proposal. The report states that the dispute was regarding monetary transactions and commission of any cognizable offence did not come to light.

¶13

The learned State Counsel has produced a copy of the extract of case diary as per which the statements of the complainant have already been recorded and the complainant has stated in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C that the complainant's side has declined to marry the applicant.

¶14

The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant took the complainant to a hotel, raped her and forwarded her photos to the complainant's parents. Copies of the photos allegedly forwarded by the complainant have been shown by the learned counsel for the complainant. One photo appears to be of an engagement ceremony. Another photo depicts a young couple sitting at a sofa, cutting a cake and in yet another photograph, a young man is seen kissing on a cheek of a girl. None of the photographs support the allegation that the applicant had raped the complainant and had video graphed the incident.Further the photos do not prima facie indicate that the same had been sent by the applicant to any person.

¶15

The learned State counsel submitted that the investigation against the applicant's parents stands completed and a charge sheet has been submitted on 25.02.2025, however, investigation against the applicant is still pending.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the complainant is a person aged 28 years, who appears to have got engaged with the applicant and thereafter frequent affectionate communication took place between both of them; the complainant claims that she declined to marry the applicant because of excessive demand of dowry, whereas the applicant states that both the families resiled form the marriage proposal because of their mutual compatibility which came to light during their frequent communication; that the complainant's father had earlier lodged a complaint with Bhopal police and commission of any cognizable offence did not come to light during investigation of that case; that the applicant is a young man having no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be granted interim anticipatory bail.

¶17

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Mohit Kalia before the learned Trial Court till the next date of listing, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing personal bail bond and two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:-

¶18

(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

(ii). That 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶20

(iii). That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶21

(iv). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Preeti.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohit Kalia v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kalia v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubham Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Home Lko.

Sanjay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Neeharika Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.

Uttam Kumar Singh Rajput @ Uttam Singh Rajput Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Somil Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Abdul Raheem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another