Allowed

Jitendra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2021CRLA/242/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a single-judge court order rejecting bail, this court granted bail to the appellant despite caste-atrocity allegations. The court noted significant delay in filing the FIR and found the magistrates' order no longer justified.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail with personal and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearance and conduct. The impugned bail rejection order is quashed.

Jitendra Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 242 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Jitendra Tyagi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Harish Chandra,Pawan Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Harish Chandra and Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 22.12.2020 whereby the Learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad have rejected the bail application no. 6679/2020, in Case Crime No. 1543 of 2020, u/s 147, 452, 365, 511, 506, 354 IPC and section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court that the FIR was lodged by Smt. Nemwati on 04.11.2020 for the incident said to have taken place on 18.08.2019 (after the delay of almost 15 months of the incident) on the direction given by the S.S.P., Ghaziabad. Though, the application for the said incident was allegedly moved by the informant on the same day in which S.S.P., Ghaziabad has not taken cognizance nor have directed to lodge the FIR.

¶8

On this delay, Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the poor lady is making effort for lodging the FIR but the police personnel were not obliging her to lodge the FIR. This justification is unswallowable proposition of this Court. Though the informant has many other remedies to lodge the FIR.

¶9

The FIR indicates that she has moved an application on 04.11.2020 to S.S.P., Ghaziabad and on the same day the S.S.P. has directed to lodge the FIR. She remain silent for more than one year and have taken no action in the matter. There is not other document that establishing any sincere effort was made by the informant to lodge the FIR or avail any other remedy provided in the law.

¶10

Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned AGA as well as Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶11

I have perused the contents of the FIR that on 18.08.2019 at 11:30 in the night, the appellant along with seven other miscreants in the police uniform, barged into her house and try to kidnap her son but has not make any physical damage to the boy. On the similar pattern Arun in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and Nemwati in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the same story. There was no physical damage to any person. There is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR

¶12

and thus, Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the appellant is one of the dreaded criminal of his area having a criminal history of 7 cases.

¶13

Sri Amrendra, learned Senior Advocate, submits that out of 7 cases in 4 cases he has been acquitted by the court below, in one he has been bailed out and yet another case no. 170/2017 u/s 142, 188 IPC is relates to Dharna Pradarshan. The appellant is in jail almost one year. So far as the caste related allegations are concerned, they are within the four corner of the house and not in the public audience. There is no independent witness of the incident of misbehave with the lady folk.

¶14

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶15

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶16

Let the appellant Jitendra Tyagi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶18

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶19

(iv) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3)

¶20

RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶22

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the S.C. community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused appellant would create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellant who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.

¶23

All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of informant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation the present criminal appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.10.2021 Nisha

Jitendra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vashu Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ritesh Sharma @ Mintu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lallan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mazid Vs State of U.P

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.