'Sufficient Grounds To Proceed Trial': Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Congress MLA Pradeep Yadav In Sexual Harassment Case
The Jharkhand High Court on Friday dismissed the criminal revision petition moved by Congress MLA Pradeep Yadav, who had sought the dismissal of a sexual harassment case brought against him by a woman. Yadav had challenged an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka refusing to discharge him.The bench of Justice Subhash Chand opined that the victim's reasons for...
The Jharkhand High Court on Friday dismissed the criminal revision petition moved by Congress MLA Pradeep Yadav, who had sought the dismissal of a sexual harassment case brought against him by a woman. Yadav had challenged an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka refusing to discharge him.
The bench of Justice Subhash Chand opined that the victim's reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR were well-founded, as she had been continuously subjected to criminal intimidation by Yadav, and his associates. It held,
"In view of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the cumulative evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation i.e., oral as well as documentary and the settled propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, there are sufficient grounds to proceed trial against the accused. As such, the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2022 passed by the court below rejecting the discharge application needs no interference."
The Court also vacated the protection granted to Yadav vide order dated 16th March, 2023.
The case against Yadav is registered under Sections 376, 511, 354-A, 354-B, 354-D, 379, 506, 509, and 34 IPC. The prosecution's account of events was presented before the court, detailing the alleged incident.
According to the victim, a practicing advocate in the High Court and Central Spokesperson for the Jharkhand Vikas Morcha Party, on April 20, 2019, she attended a party event in Mohanpur, Deoghar. Present at the event were Babulal Jee, Hemant Soren and Pradeep Yadav.
Prosecution claimed that later that evening, she received a call from Pradeep Yadav, the General Secretary and MLA of the party, asking her to come to a hotel for a meeting to discuss parliamentary matters and meet other team members. She allegedly followed his instructions and reached the hotel, but upon arrival, she couldn't locate Yadav. He is then said to have directed her to speak to someone at the reception, where she was instructed to sign in, provide identification, and wait in a room for him.
The victim alleges that when Pradeep Yadav joined her in the hotel room, he made unwanted advances, touched her inappropriately, and threatened her. Despite her protests, the alleged actions continued until she managed to fend him off and threaten to call for help. In fear, Yadav reportedly took her purse and stole money from it before leaving the room, warning her to stay silent or face harm and expulsion from the party. The victim said she left the room the following morning, seeking help but receiving none. Eventually, she filed a formal complaint against Pradeep Yadav, leading to the registration of the case.
Bimalkirti Singh, Yadav's counsel argued that the lower court made a significant error in rejecting his discharge application by issuing a very brief order without properly assessing the statements of all the impartial witnesses. He claimed that these witnesses did not support the allegations made by the complainant in her case. Furthermore, it was emphasized that Yadav had been falsely implicated in this case due to political motives.
Alternatively, Gautam Kumar, the counsel for Opposite Party No.2 (X) and the Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State argued that the prosecutrix had been subjected to continuous threats and criminal intimidation if she were to report the incident to the relevant police station, and even after the FIR was filed, both the prosecutrix and prosecution witnesses continued to face criminal intimidation.
Case Title: Pradeep Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 36
Case No.: Cr. Revision No.933 of 2022
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Ujjal Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate Mr. Manjusha Priya, Advocate Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate