Allowed

Radheraman Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024/281/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J., allowed bail for the applicant charged under Sections 366, 376 IPC. Considering the victim's silence, travel to public places, and lack of criminal history, the court deemed it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and seeking adjournments.

Radheraman Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5083

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 281 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Radheraman Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra,Udit Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalu Prasad Bhatt

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.233 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Huzoorpur, District Bahraich.

¶9

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that daughter of the informant aged about 18-19 years has been enticed away by the named accused Durgesh Tiwari who has been aided by co-accused Shivam Tiwari.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Victim while giving statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. though has made allegation of rape however, has submitted that she on her own accord went away with the applicant and resided with the applicant from 24.06.2023 to 27.07.2023 in various cities i.e. Karnailganj, Lucknow, Delhi, Chandigarh.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that according to the statement of the victim as well as the educational record and the ossification test, victim is major but still at no point of time, she has raised any alarm which shows that she was a consenting party, no corroborative evidence has been found in the medical examination of the victim. Applicant is in jail since 24.07.2023. Applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and has submitted that victim has made allegation of rape in her statements under Sections

¶13

161 & 164 Cr.P.C.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2023, applicant has no criminal history, victim is major, she remained with the applicant for almost one month and travelled to various public places in four cities but still has not raised any alarm prima facie , it appears that she was a consenting party, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Radheraman Tiwari be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with

¶23

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Radheraman Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheraman Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maniram Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Hazrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Satyam Bajpei Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Rishab Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suresh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.