Allahabad High Court: In a bail plea filed by the accused under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) who was charged under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 376-D, 504, 506, 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. denied bail to the accused.
Background:
The complainant, mother of the victim, filed an FIR on 17-06-2024, accusing her son-in-law of forcing her daughter into illegal activities after their marriage in February 2024. The complainant alleges that the accused not only involved her daughter in criminal acts but also physically abused and threatened to kill her if she protested. The victim disclosed that the accused would lock her in a room with random men and force her to engage in illicit acts for money. Despite the complainant rescuing her daughter with police assistance, the accused allegedly entered their house on 15-04-2024 with weapons, attempting to drag the victim back. However, the FIR was filed only two months later, leading the accused’s defense to argue that the case was fabricated due to a matrimonial dispute. The defense also pointed to the delayed reporting of the incident, asserting that the accused has been wrongfully implicated. The accused, who has been in jail since 25-08-2024, seeks bail, assuring that he will not misuse the granted liberty.
Court’s Order
The Court noted that this is not a simple case of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife. The fact of the case and allegation levelled by the victim against the accused was rare.
The Court said that the allegations in the case were a severe affront to the victim’s dignity, self-esteem, and honour. The Court emphasized that the impact of such an offense goes beyond physical harm, as it leaves a lasting psychological and emotional trauma, tarnishing a woman’s most valued possession—her dignity, honour, and reputation.
The Court further stated that a rapist not only causes physical injuries but also indelibly marks the victim’s life.
Considering the gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and the overall facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that there were no valid grounds to grant bail to the accused, and thus, rejected the bail application.
[Salman v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36778 of 2024, decided on 02-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Applicant : Manish Kumar Dwivedi,Sonu Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party : G.A.,Yogesh Kumar Tripathi
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
