Dismissed

Alok Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2022ABAIL/2005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference despite the applicant's contention regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and conflicting prosecution narrative.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Alok Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2005 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Alok Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Vishal Chaurasia,Santosh Kumar Kesarwani

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Krishna S Chandel,Vinod Kumar Chandel,Vivek Singh Chandel

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Vinod Kumar Chandel, the learned counsel for opposite party-2..

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants-Alok Tiwari, Arun Kumar Pandey and Vikash Kumar Pandey in connection with Case Crime No.59 of 2021, under Sections 376, 377, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Chitaipur, DistrictVaranasi/(Kashi Commission-irate).

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants contends that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred in the year 2016an F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2021. However in order to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. giving rise to present application for anticipatory bail, it is alleged that subsequent to above, another incident occurred on 04.04.2021 The FIR further states that two of the named co-accused namely Arun Kumar Pandey and Vikash Kumar Pandey, who are brother-in-law of applicants have forcefully dislodged the modesty of prosecutrix on 04.04.2021.As such, the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. is improbable.

¶10

However, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Vinod Kumar Chandel, the learned counsel for opposite party-2 have opposed the present application for anticipatory bail. They submit that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained by the prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, copy of the same have not been brought on record.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant has also relied upon following judgements of Apex Court in support of present application for anticipatory bail:-

¶12

i. Shivashankar @ Shiva Vs. State of Karnatka and Another (2019) 18 SCC 204.

¶13

ii. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. state of Maharashtra and others (2019) 18 SCC 191.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. representing opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, nature of the offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and judgement of Apex Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 , this Court does not find any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

In view of above, present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.

¶16

Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.4.2022 YK

¶18

Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.04.19 10:03:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alok Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Tiwari and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Rashid @ Loha Vs State of U.P.

Muzammil Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another