Allowed

Kashinath Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023BAIL/58825/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015 involving sexual offences under IPC and POCSO, the Court allowed bail citing jail overcrowding, Article 21 rights, and prior case history without expressing substantive opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and complying with conditions regarding tampering with evidence and attending trial dates.

Kashinath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58825 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kashinath Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

As per ofÏce report dated 24.1.2023 notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 through his brother but no one appears on his behalf.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Kashinath Tiwari, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 289 of 2015, under Sections 354-B,376,511,149 IPC section 7/8 POCSO Act and section 3(2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act Police Station Dokati, District- Ballia, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of making attempt to commit rape with common object and also offence of use of criminal force against women to disrobe her besides offence under section 7/8 POCSO Act and section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is prior enmity between the parties. The brother of the informant, Chhotak Pasi, was one of the co-accused in S.T. No. 12 of 2015, wherein applicant was informant.His trial is still pending before the Juvenile Court .Applicant has been implicated in this case because he was informant of the aforesaid case wherein his daughter, aged about 16 years, was subjected to offence of rape and illegal confinement by the brother of the informant.It is a case of false implication.Even in this case victim has assigned only the role of exhortation to the applicant and offence of rape has been assigned to the co-accused.Applicant is aged about 68 years. He is in jail since 21.11.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed

¶11

Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court

¶16

or to any police ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

¶21

Atul kr. sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kashinath Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pulkit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Musheer Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ashraf Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Bhajan Kol Vs State of U.P.