Allahabad High Court

Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 5 June, 2025

Author: Manish Mathur

Bench: Manish Mathur





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34733
 
Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 928 of 2025
 
Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Singh,Amritesh Kumar Tripathi,Parth Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A for State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2-complainant.

3. Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Lucknow rejecting the anticipatory bail application No. 1620 of 2025 of the appellant in case crime No. 57 of 2025 under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 452, 392 B.N.S. & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act of P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

2. Learned counsel for complainant has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal in view of the fact that Sections of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1989") has been imputed and therefore an anticipatory bail as is being sought is barred in terms of Section 18 (A)(2) of Act, 1989.

3. Learned counsel for appellant further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No.1015 of 2018, in which, the embargo of Section 18(A)(2) of Act, 1989 has not been held to be absolute and is subject to certain conditions.

4. Upon considering the submissions advanced and judgment rendered in the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (Supra), it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing Section 18 (A) of Act, 1989 has held that embargo imposed therein is not absolute and an anticipatory bail application would be maintainable even in case of imputation of sections under Act, 1989, in case, prima facie, the allegations levelled do not appear to be made out from a perusal of the F.I.R. itself.

5. Upon the aforesaid facts, preliminary objection would be dealt along with the merits of the case.

6. As per contents of F.I.R., allegations leveled against the appellant is that he entered into a physical relationship with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage and continued as such, for a period of more than ten years. Allegations levelled is also of the complainant undergoing miscarriage due to harassment being faced at the instance of appellant. It is stated that on 02.09.2023 as well as 09.05.2024, the appellant along with co-accused is said to have barged into the house of complainant and has humiliated her on account of her caste.

7. It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be quite evident from the fact that the complainant, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has clearly indicated that she entered into a physical relationship with the appellant in the year of 2008 when she was already married to another person and, therefore, there cannot be false promise of marriage when the complainant was already married in the year of 2008 and admittedly obtained divorce from her husband in the year of 2012.

8. It is therefore, submitted that the provisions of Section 375 read with Section 90 I.P.C., would not be attracted. It is also submitted that even as per F.I.R., the complainant's caste based insults were made inside her residence, the provision of Section 3 of Act, 1989 would therefore not be applicable since they were not in public view. To substantiate such submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (9) SCR 593. It is submitted that the appellant does not have any previous criminal history and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation which is still going on.

9. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application with the submission that even as per contents of F.I.R., imputation of Section 375 read with Section 376 I.P.C. are clearly made out particularly pertaining to entering into physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage and, therefore, inducing the complainant to enter into such relationship on the basis of misconception.

10. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated the aspect that the present appeal would not be maintainable for grant of anticipatory bail.

11. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions, admitted that there is no previous criminal history of appellant but that he is not cooperating in the investigation.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears from the perusal of F.I.R. that the complainant has clearly stated that she was in a relationship with the appellant for a period of more than ten years after she was divorced in the year of 2012. It is also stated that relationship was based on the false pretext of marriage extended by the appellant. It is also stated that on 02.09.2023 and 09.05.2024, the appellant along with his family members, forcibly entered into the house of complainant whereafter caste based insults was made. There appears to be certain contradiction with regard to such allegations in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, she admits having entered into physical relationship with the appellant in the year of 2008 when she was already married to another person and subsequently divorced in the year of 2012.

13. In such circumstances, the aspect of imputation of Section 3 of Act, 1989 would require consideration by trial court particularly in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra). The aspect of imputation of Section 375 read with Section 90 I.P.C. pertaining to misconception on the false pretext of marriage would also require consideration particularly with the difference between false promise being made from the very inception or breach of promise subsequently.

14. In such circumstances, this Court finds the judgment in rendered in the case of Prithvi Raj (Supra), is squarely applicable in the present circumstances of the case, prima facie the aspects of imputation under Section 3 of Act, 1989 may not be applicable but would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial.

15. In such circumstances, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail is held to be maintainable.

16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the fact that investigation against the appellant is still on going, in which he indicates to cooperate, this Court finds the appellant to be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

17. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the appellant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

18. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the appellant- Ashok Kumar Yadav shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) The appellant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

(2) The accused-appellant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

(3) The appellant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.