The Allahabad High Court rejected a second anticipatory bail application by Ajay Tiwari regarding serious rape allegations within a matrimonial context. Findings of fact and law led to a refusal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1548 of 2022
Applicant :- Ajay Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta,Achyutanand Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dinesh Singh Rana, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present second anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Ajay Tiwari , under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 462 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Unnao, during pendency of the trial after rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Unnao vide order dated 6.7.2022. First Anticipatory Bail Application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn on 1.9.2022.
Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 14.6.2022 has been lodged by the victim on the basis of an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against the applicant and two other named persons stating that the marriage of the first informant was solemnized with the co-accused Ashutosh Tiwari on 24.5.2021. When she went to her matrimonial house, the applicant, who is brother-in-law of the first informant, attempted to rape with her and second day she informed her mother-in-law about the incident, but she did not objected the behaviour of the applicant. Again she informed to her husband, but the husband of the victim committed marpeet with her by kick and fist and snatched her mobile. When she went to the matrimonial house third time, the applicant committed rape with her when her husband went to shop and all other allegations are against other co-accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to matrimonial discord. The applicant is brother-in-law of the first informant. It is further submitted that there is no medical
certificate with regard to the injuries and against the offence of rape. The applicant has no criminal history and he has not been convicted by any court in cognizable offence.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the marriage of the first informant was solemnized on 24.5.2021 and on the first night of her marriage, the applicant attempted to commit rape with her and he committed rape when victim had gone to the matrimonial house third time. First informant has filed a complaint against the applicant and other co-accused persons with regard to the facts of the present first information report on 20.11.2021. It is further submitted that matrimonial petitions have been lodged after the complaint dated 20.11.2021. It is further submitted that anticipatory bail application of co-accused bearing Nos. 1227 and 1157 of 2022 has been rejected by this Court on merits.
It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
The present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 14.10.2022 T. Sinha
Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.10.17 19:01:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving serious allegations of rape arising from matrimonial discord.
Whether the applicant is a fit case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Tiwari
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Tripti Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
