Back
2025 Supreme(All) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Abhay Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others - Respondents
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1615 of 2024
Decided on : 21-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vijay Vikram Singh
For the Respondent: G.A., Evaz Ali, Sayyed Farooq Ahmad
Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of prima facie evidence and the applicant's clean record, despite evolving allegations of dowry demands and sexual offenses.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 406, 504, 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3/4 - Anticipatory bail application filed in response to FIR alleging dowry demands and sexual offenses - The applicant's family allegedly refused marriage and made threats regarding dowry - Court granted interim anticipatory bail, citing lack of corroborative evidence and the applicant's clean record. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 8)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case and the absence of any substantial evidence against the applicant to deny bail. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was lodged on 10.08.2023, alleging that the applicant's family demanded dowry and made threats after the engagement was performed on 12.05.2023. The informant claimed that the applicant refused to marry and did not return the dowry articles. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the informant's allegations evolved over time and lacked initial corroboration, leading to the decision to grant bail. (Paras 8)
Issues: The court addressed whether the allegations in the FIR warranted denial of anticipatory bail given the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and the evolving nature of the informant's allegations. (Paras 4, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a clear prima facie case and the applicant's unblemished record justified granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the importance of consistent allegations in such cases. (Paras 4, 8)
Result: Anticipatory bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri Anchal Tewari, who has filed his vakalatnama, on behalf of the applicant and Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 484 of 2023, under Sections 376, 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act , Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 10.08.2023 against the applicant and his family members, stating that marriage of the informant was got settled with the applicant on 09.03.2023. The engagement ceremony was performed on 12.05.2023. On 14.05.2023, the applicant made a phone call to the informant's elder brother and objected about the gifts given at the time of engagement ceremony. Thereafter, on 24.06.2023, the applicant's father informed that the applicant did not want to marry the informant. On 25.06.2023, the informant's brother returned all the articles given to her but he again talked to the accused persons regarding the marriage on 26.06.2023 requesting for marriage of the informant with the applicant but his request was not accepted and the articles given during engagement ceremony were also not returned.
4. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 23.07.2024:-
"Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 state
