Allowed

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2021ABAIL/4215/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Sections 376-D, 506 IPC, and POCSO Act, this Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. However, it granted exemption from coercive action for 60 days provided the applicant surrenders and applies for regular bail before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied, but exemption from coercive action granted for 60 days upon surrender and application for regular bail.

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4215 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Indrakant Dwivedi,Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2020, under Sections- 376-D, 506 I.P.C., Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶11

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶12

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶13

However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.3.2021 KS

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallu and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepu Singh Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Natthu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bholi and Another Vs State of U.P.