Allahabad High Court
Alok Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151630
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8421 of 2023
Applicant :- Alok Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagmohan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Jagmohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.40 of 2020, registered under Sections 376, 511, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Chhote @ Ankit is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the informant on the pretext of marrying her and the same continued for a period of about six years. Subsequent to it, the applicant is stated to have attempted to rape the informant and had threatened her for life.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no date and time of the offence alleged. There are ample contradictions in the FIR to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby it is stated that the said corporeal relationship was established with the consent of wife of co-accused person Chhote @ Ankit and at the house of the applicant. The applicant is stated to have asked her for sexual favours only which was not acceded and the informant had kicked the applicant and ran away from the scene of occurrence. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR itself is delayed as it has been instituted on 13.2.2020. The allegations are vague and false. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Alok Tiwari be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 28.7.2023/ Vikas
