# (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-03-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5148 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-40465
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-439- Grant
of Bail- offence under Section 498-A, 406
IPC readwith 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Actallegation about demand of Dowry of Rs.
50,000/- and Motor cycle-admittedly the
marriage not solemnized F.I.R. lodged on
3.2.2005 at 4.30 PM while the time for
arrival of Barat was fixed at 6.00 P.M.-No
efforts
made
by
the
informant
to
ascertain
the
truthfulness
of
such
message-strong
possibility
of
cancellation of marriage by the first
informent himself-applicant not within
the meaning of husband-No offence
under section 498-A made out-heldapplicant entitled to be released on bail.

Held: Para 9

In Section 498-A the words are used
'being the husband' so the person can be
said a husband only after the marriage
and the woman also can be said a wife
after her marriage. In the present case,
admittedly, the marriage has not taken
place, so no offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. is made out. Even as per the
allegation made in the F.I.R., there is no
fulfillment of the ingredients of Section
406 I.P.C.. The applicant is in jail since
18.2.2005.
In
such
circumstances,
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail.
Case law discussed:
1996 SCC (Crl.) 792

## Text

424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
24. The students, who have obtained
'Shiksha
Shastri'
degree
from
the
University and its Colleges upto 1995-96;
from the Faculty of Education of the
University for the year 1996-97, and from
the University and affiliated Colleges for
1999-2000 and thereafter are valid. These
students shall be at liberty to make
appropriate
representations
to
the
Director, State Council of Educational
Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow
along with copy of this judgement and
their particulars which shall be decided in
accordance with directions issued in these
judgements within four weeks of such
communication.

25. All
the
writ
petitions
are
accordingly disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Petition Disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5148 of 2005

Vikas

...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vivek Dhaka
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri M.N. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri B.B. Paul
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-439- Grant
of Bail- offence under Section 498-A, 406
IPC readwith 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Actallegation about demand of Dowry of Rs.
50,000/- and Motor cycle-admittedly the
marriage not solemnized F.I.R. lodged on
3.2.2005 at 4.30 PM while the time for
arrival of Barat was fixed at 6.00 P.M.-No
efforts
made
by
the
informant
to
ascertain
the
truthfulness
of
such
message-strong
possibility
of
cancellation of marriage by the first
informent himself-applicant not within
the meaning of husband-No offence
under section 498-A made out-heldapplicant entitled to be released on bail.

Held: Para 9

In Section 498-A the words are used
'being the husband' so the person can be
said a husband only after the marriage
and the woman also can be said a wife
after her marriage. In the present case,
admittedly, the marriage has not taken
place, so no offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. is made out. Even as per the
allegation made in the F.I.R., there is no
fulfillment of the ingredients of Section
406 I.P.C.. The applicant is in jail since
18.2.2005.
In
such
circumstances,
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail.
Case law discussed:
1996 SCC (Crl.) 792

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vivek Dhaka, Sri V.K.
Singh and Sri M.N. Singh learned counsel
for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri
B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the
complainant. The learned counsel for the
complainant has filed counter affidavit on
behalf of the complainant.

2. This application has been filed on
behalf of the applicant Vikas with a
prayer to release the applicant on bail in
case crime No. 51 of 2005, under Section
498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4
2 All] Vikas V. State of U.P.

 425
Dowry Prohibition Act, Kankar Khera,
district Meerut.

3. The facts in brief of the case are
that the first informant Ratan Lal lodged
an F.I.R. at police station Kankar Khera
on 3.2.2005 at 4.30 p.m. in respect of the
alleged incident dated 3.2.2005 which
occurred at 11.00 a.m., in vicinity of
mohalla Sainik Bihar, Meerut against the
applicant, his mother, his maternal uncle
namely Shreepal, Smt. Nirmala wife of
Shreepal and Vinod, the Mausera brother
of the applicant, on the basis of the
following allegations:-

4. That the marriage of applicant
Vikas was settled with Km. Kanchan the
daughter of the first informant. The
enagagement ceremony was solemnized
on 30.1.2005 in which some articles as
mentioned in the list, were given to the
accused persons. Thereafter, it was settled
that the marriage will be solemnized on
3.2.2005. The Barat for the same purpose
was to come on 3.2.2005 at 6.00 p.m.
from the house of the applicant but on
3.2.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. some
persons including the maternal uncle,
maternal aunt and Mausera brother of the
applicant came at the house of the
complainant and asked that the mother of
the applicant has told that Rs.51,000/- and
one motorcycle may be given to them
prior to arrival of the Barat. If the
aforesaid demand is fulfilled, the Barat
will
reach
otherewise
not.
The
complainant has shown his inability to
fulfill
the
aforesaid
demand
and
thereafter, the first informant went to the
police station and lodged the F.I.R.
against the applicant and other co-accused
persons on 3.2.2005 at about 4.30 p.m.

5. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that there was no
demand of dowry. The marriage was
settled without dowry, even in the
engagement ceremony the articles shown
in the list, were not given to the applicant.

6. The allegation in respect of
demand of dowry made by the maternal
uncle, maternal aunt and Mausera brother
of the applicant is apparently false and
baseless, because they have no interest to
make such demand and they were not in
anywhere benefited by fulfillment of such
demand and in the F.I.R. the name of any
witness in whose presence such demand
of the dowry was made, is not mentioned
as such the entire allegations levelled
against the applicant and other co-accused
persons are false and baseless. The
marriage of the applicant was settled with
Km. Kanchan the daughter of the first
informant. It was scheduled to be
solemnized on 3.2.2005, but at the
instance of one Surendra the brother-inlaw (sister's husband) of Km. Kanchan the
first informant made up his mind not to
perform the marriage of the applicant with
Km. Kanchan because Surendra Singh
was having some illicit relations with Km.
Kanchan and he wanted to get her married
at some nearby place with his close
person so that she may be easily available
for him to continue his relations. On
3.2.2005
the
said
Surendra
gave
telephonic information to the family
member of the applicant that the marriage
of Km. Kanchan with Vikas will not be
solemnized, on that information the
maternal
uncle,
maternal
aunt
and
Mausera brother of the applicant went to
the house of the first informant at 11.00
a.m. to know the reasons for denial of the
marriage
and
to
persuade
him
to
solemnize the marriage, but the first
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
finformant demanded the huge amount of
money. They refused to accept the
demand of the first informant then he
lodged the F.I.R., in order to harass and
extract the huge amount of money from
the family members of the applicant. Such
story
was
published
in
the
daily
newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 4.2.2005.
The F.I.R. is delayed by five hours. The
distance of the police station was only one
kilometre
from
the
place
of
the
occurrence and there is no plausible
explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R..
It is further contended that admittedly no
marriage of the applicant with Km.
Kanchan
was
solemnized.
So
the
applicant cannot be brought within the
ambit of definition of the husband, so the
offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is
concerned, the first informant has failed
to substantiate such allegations. Even in
the counter affidavit the list of the articles
given in the engagement ceremony no
receipt of purchase has been filed, and
there is no allegation that the accused
have refused to return the articles, so the
offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is not
made out. The allegations made against
the applicant are false and frivolous. The
applicant
is
innocent,
he
has
not
committed the alleged offence, so he is
entitled to be released on bail because he
is in jail since 18.2.2005.

7. The contentions made by the
learned counsel for the applicant are
opposed by the learned A.G.A. and Sri
B.B. Paul learned counsel for the
complainant by stating that admittedly the
marriage of Km. Kanchan was settled
with the applicant and the applicant did
not bring the Barat to perform the
marriage on 3.2.2005. The demand of
dowry was made at his saying by his
maternal uncle and others. The demand of
the dowry was not fulfilled by the first
informant and it is admitted by the
applicant that the engagement ceremony
was performed. It is submitted that in that
ceremony the articles were given, which
are mentioned in the list and on the basis
of the allegations, the offence under
Section 498-A I.P.C. is made out because
the applicant was 'proposed husband', for
the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C., the
performance of marriage is not necessary.
In support of his submission he cited a
case of the Apex Court S. Gopal Reddy
Vs. State of A.P. 1996, S.C.C. (Crl.) 792
in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has
taken the view that for the purpose of
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act the
marriage includes the proposed marriage
also. So the applicant is not entitled for
bail.

8. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Shri
B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the
complainant and from the perusal of the
record, in the present case it is admitted
that the marriage of the applicant was
settled with Km. Kanchan, the daughter of
the first informant which was scheduled
to be solemnized on 3.2.2005 and the time
of the arrival of the Barat was also fixed
as 6 p.m. on 3.2.2005. It is also admitted
that the engagement ceremony was
performed. It is also admitted that the
marriage was not solemnized. On the date
of marriage at about 11 a.m. the maternal
uncle, maternal aunt and Mausera brother
of the applicant went to the house of first
informant and conveyed the message
given by the applicant and his mother in
respect of demand of dowry and nonfulfillment of demand they refused to
bring the Barat. The first informant has
2 All] Vikas V. State of U.P.

 427
shown his inability to fulfill the said
demand and lodged F.I.R. on 3.2.2005 at
4.30 p.m. in which no name of the witness
has been mentioned. It was lodged before,
the time of the arrival of the Barat which
was scheduled at 6 p.m. Te first informant
did not wait for the time of the arrival of
the Barat and he did not make any efforts
to ascertain truthfulness of the message
conveyed to him, even he did not make
any effort to pursue the applicant and his
family members for bringing the Barat,
in such circumstances it may be a strong
possibility that the first informant himself
has cancelled marriage. Even according to
the prosecution version there is no
allegation that there was any demand of
dowry at any stage of negotiation for
marriage prior to 3.2.2005 because he is
not having sufficient source of income, he
is having a small shop of general
merchant and living in a small rented
house.

9. There is no allegation that any
article given by the first informant was
demanded by the applicant or any other
accused as a consideration for marriage
and if any article was given in the
engagement ceremony it was a gift for
which the demand of return would have
been made by the first informant. Any
such demand was not made and there is
no allegation that the applicant and other
accused had refused to return the article
given in engagement ceremony so it
cannot be said that the applicant and
others have misappropriated the article
and the money given in the engagement
ceremony by the first informant and on
the basis of the allegation, made the
offence under Section 498-A is not made
out, because for the purpose of Section
498-A, it is a necessary ingredient that the
marriage must be performed. After the
marriage a person can be said a husband
of a woman and that woman can be said a
husband of a woman and that woman can
be said a wife. The view taken by the
Apex Court in the case of S. Gopal Reddy
(supra) is far the interpretation of Section
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act because the
demand of dowry can be raised at any
stage of negotiation for marriage, it may
be before, at or after the marriage, where
such demand is made as a consideration
for marriage would attract Section 4 of
the Act, for the purpose of this Act the
marriage includes the proposed marriage
also, because the Dowry Prohibition Act
is a piece of social legislation, which aims
to check the growing menace of social
evil of dowry. For this provision the
performance of the marriage is not
necessarily
required
but
this
interpretation cannot give any support to
the contention of learned counsel for the
complainant
because
for
the
interpretation of Section 498-A the
intention of the Legislatre is very clear. It
is for the purpose of protection to the
married woman so that after marriage she
may not be harassed or subjected to
cruelty. In Section 498-A the words are
used 'being the husband' so the person
can be said a husband only after the
marriage and the woman also can be said
a wife after her marriage. In the present
case, admittedly, the marriage has not
taken place, so no offence under Section
498-A I.P.C. is made out. Even as per the
allegation made in the F.I.R., there is no
fulfillment of the ingredients of Section
406 I.P.C.. The applicant is in jail since
18.2.2005. In such circumstances, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the applicant is entitled to be
released on bail.
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005

10. Let the applicant Vikas involved
in case crime no. 51 of 2005, under
Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.
Kankar Khera, District Meerut be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Meerut.
Application Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45091 of 2002

Dheeraj Kumar Dubey
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Niraj Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Rai
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Service Law- Right of appointment-69
posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari- advertised
out of 67 candidates from the merit list
as well 2 posts by the candidates from
waiting list occupied- subsequently- 28
post,
further
advertised-
petitioner
claimed the same to be ful filled by the
candidates from waiting list- held the
moment on which the future vacancy
advertised- the waiting list comes to an
end and cannot be utilized further.

Held- Para 6

The judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is totally
distinguishable. That was a case where
the candidates name was found in the
select list, but in the present case, the
petitioner's name was only found in the
waiting list which came to an end upon
the filling up of the entire vacancies that
were advertised. As stated earlier, once
the vacancies are filled up, the waiting
list comes to an end and cannot be
utilized any further.
Case law discussed:
1996(3) SCC 273
1999(3) UPLBEC 1731
1991(3) SCC-47
2001(6) SCC-380
2003(10) SCC-136
2002 SCC (5) 195
1993(1) SLR-44

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Various posts were advertised in
the year 1998 for an appointment of a
Gram Vikas Adhikari. The petitioner
applied and appeared in the written
examination, in which he was successful
and thereafter appeared in the interview
before the District Committee. A select
list was issued in which the petitioner was
placed at serial No.2 of the list of the
waiting candidates. Out of 69 posts, 67
posts were filled up from the select list
and by an order dated 7.8.2001, two
persons from the waiting list, namely,
Raghvendra Singh and Lal Chandra were
appointed. The petitioner contended that
by
an
order
dated
28.1.2000,
the
Additional Commissioner Administration
Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow had
written a letter to all the District
Development Officers in the State of U.P.
to indicate the number of vacancies
existing on the post of Gram Vikas
Adhikari. Pursuant to the said letter, the
District Development Officer, Gorakhpur
by a letter dated 9.2.2000 intimated that
twenty two posts were vacant in his
region. The petitioner submitted that
when two persons from the waiting list