Allowed

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2022BAIL/5345/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sonu Tiwari charged under the P.O.C.S.O. Act. Noting a prior bail order by a coordinate bench, the court held that despite the charge-sheet filing and the heinous nature of the offence, the applicant had made out a case for bail subject to conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Accused to be released on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and not reoffending.

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5345 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Kumar Dubey,Santosh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

This Court on 04.04.2022 had noticed that the name of Shri Rajendra Kumar Dubey and Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates is shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2, however, they were neither present nor their 'vakalatnama' was available. In this view of the matter, this Court had directed the office to trace out whether any 'vakalatnama'/power has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Now the office has placed before this Court 'vakalatnama', which has been filed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Dubey and Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates on behalf of the opposite party no.2. However, none is present on her behalf despite the case was adjourned on 04.04.2022 for today to provide them an opportunity of being heard.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the counsels engaged on behalf of the opposite party no.2 are deliberately avoiding their presence.

¶7

Heard Shri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.26 of 2020, under Sections 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station -Kotwali Fatehgarh, District -Farrukhabad, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16863 of 2021 for the purpose of obtaining bail in this crime under Sections 376-D, 313, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station -Kotwali Fatehgarh, District -Farrukhabad and vide order dated 23.12.2021, he was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, however, in between the charge sheet was submitted

¶10

under Sections 376A, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act by the addition of Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and the applicant could not be released on bail despite the order of this Court and thus he was compelled to move bail application before the trial court under newly added Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, however, the trial court without considering the case of the applicant in right perspective has rejected his prayer of bail.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2021 after considering the case of the applicant in totality found that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the dispute is actually in between the informant and her husband namely Pravesh Singh Tomar and the applicant, who is an Advocate, is engaged by the husband of the informant for the purpose of conducting his matrimonial cases and the allegation by the informant as well as by the prosecutrix has been levelled only on the basis of this enmity in order to harass and pressurize the applicant not to conduct the case on behalf of her husband.

¶12

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 06.02.2021, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and identically placed co-accused of the crime namely Vishnu Sharan Rastogi has been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 22.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2771 of 2020 in all the sections, wherein the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant including Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and the role of the applicant is identical. It is submitted that the applicant was not having any criminal history before the instant case, however, a criminal case pertaining to Section 174 I.P.C. has been lodged against the applicant for non compliance of process in this case, which is not having any bearing on the merits of the case. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and having regard to the manner in which the crime has been committed, he is not entitled to be released on bail but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant was earlier granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Bench vide order

¶15

dated 23.12.2021, however, when the bail order granted by this Court was placed before the trial court, charge sheet had already been filed amongst other also under Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and now the applicant is before this Court requesting to grant bail under added Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act as his request has not been acceded to by the trial court.

¶16

It has been vehemently submitted that after looking into all the facts and circumstances of the case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted bail to the applicant and except filing charge sheet under section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, nothing has changed. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 06.02.2021. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶17

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶18

Let the accused/applicant- Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the

¶25

purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 12.4.2022 Anupam S/-

¶27

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.12 16:55:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Dhanraj Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vindeshwari Sonker and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akbar Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Darshan Lal Vs State of U.P.

Ishendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another