The Allahabad High Court recently intervened in a sensitive and high-profile case involving Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) fast bowler Yash Dayal. He faced allegations of sexual exploitation under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—akin to the old Section 376 IPC offence of sexual intercourse through deceitful promise of marriage. The allegations arose from a woman in the National Capital Region (NCR) who claimed that, over a span of nearly five years, Dayal had misled her with assurances of marriage, maintained a physical relationship, and later exploited her emotionally, physically, and financially.
The complaint was initially submitted via the Chief Minister’s grievance portal and later formally registered as an FIR at the Indirapuram police station in Ghaziabad. In response, Dayal filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking an interim stay on his arrest and, ultimately, a quashing of the FIR.
A two-judge bench led by Justices Siddhartha Varma and Anil Kumar-X granted the stay on his arrest, issuing notice to both the state and the complainant, and directing them to file counter-affidavits. The Court emphasized that until further developments, no coercive action should be taken against Dayal. This protective order reflects the Court’s caution in handling allegations involving prominent public figures, especially in the early stages of investigation.
The Court reviewed the contents of the FIR and noted that the relationship between Dayal and the woman had existed over an extended timeframe. It questioned whether mere delay in formalizing marriage plans sufficed to establish a fraudulent intent from the outset. The Bench took particular note of the complainant’s relationship with Dayal’s family, who had reportedly treated her as a prospective daughter-in-law—casting doubt on whether any deception had premeditated intent. The judges stated that “It is difficult at this stage to ascertain whether there was any promise of marriage, or if there was, it was from the beginning without intention to fulfill it.” The Court’s prudential stance is emblematic of the need for more detailed examination before criminal enterprise, especially in matters that may involve consenting relationships.
Dayal’s legal team, led by senior counsel G.S. Chaturvedi, argued that the FIR’s allegations lacked a clear malicious intent; instead, they painted a picture common to evolving personal relationships. They pointed out that the complainant waited nearly five years before taking legal action and that the filing closely coincided with Dayal’s sporting success—a fact they suggested indicated a possible motive of extortion or personal vendetta. They also emphasized that evidence before the police consisted only of the complainant’s testimony, uncorroborated by unbiased witnesses, further raising doubts about its sufficiency at this early stage.
The state, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, contended that the nature of the allegations—physical, mental, and emotional exploitation—formed a prima facie case under Section 69 BNS. The bench accepted that the allegations are serious and require thorough investigation. However, it noted that they could not rely solely on the FIR narrative to determine guilt. The grant of interim relief ensures the investigation proceeds without hampering Dayal’s personal freedom prematurely.
This judgment reflects a careful judicial balancing—protecting a public figure’s liberty while preserving space for due investigation. Courts must tread sensitively in cases dealing with alleged betrayal of trust, especially where private relationships are concerned. The Allahabad High Court’s focus was clear: allegations of deceitful-sexual conduct under the guise of marriage must be weighed against intent, context, and credibility—not assumed from entry alone.
Procedurally, the stay means the police cannot arrest or detain Dayal until the next court hearing or the filing of a counter-affidavit. The Court also issued notices to both state and complainant to ensure robust engagement as the case unfolds. Meanwhile, it maintained the FIR’s existence, without diminishing its seriousness, but deferred any coercive measures. This approach echoes other high courts’ caution in sensitive criminal allegations where evidence is preliminary.
In sum, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling offers a nuanced framework. It neither trivializes grave allegations nor permits hasty incarceration based solely on sensational claims. By restraining arrest but directing rigorous investigation and respectful hearing, the Court reaffirmed the values of liberty, due process, and fairness. The case, now pending further affidavits and hearings, serves as a reminder: when trust is allegedly broken, courts must balance protection of victims with protections for the accused—especially in the early phase of the law’s response.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.