Allowed

Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024BAIL/1381/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to Monu Tiwari in a case involving alleged statutory offences against a minor. The court noted contradictions in the victim's statements and clean medical reports, finding the allegations improbable while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding non-interference with witnesses, cooperation in trial, and no further criminal activity.

Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12482

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1381 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Kumar Ojha,Prashant Chandra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted. Learned AGA has also produced before this Court for perusal a communication sent by the concerned police station with regard to the service on the opposite party no.2/complainant, the same is taken on record.

¶8

A perusal of this communication sent by the concerned police station, the opposite party no. 2 has sufficiently been served, however, he is not represented.

¶9

Heard Shri Abhay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 529 of 2023, under Sections 377,323,506 I.P.C., Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act & Section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of this case has been lodged by the father of the victim on 14.10.2023 alleging therein that the applicant has committed carnal intercourse with his son aged about 13 years.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the story as cooked up in order to falsely implicate the applicant by the complainant/informant, is highly improbable and could not be believed. The incident is shown to have occurred in broad

¶13

daylight. However, there is no independent witness who could claim to have seen the same.

¶14

It is also submitted that there is no medical evidence in support of the allegations and only on account of the political enmity, the informant has used his minor boy to make the offences grave. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC and mere perusal of these two statements would reveal that a false case has been cooked up against him.

¶15

It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 15.10.2023 and criminal history of one case has been explained in para no. 17 of the bail application. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the age of the victim is about 13 years and the allegation of committing oral sex as well as anal sex has been levelled by him. Learned counsel for the applicant has highlighted many contradictions emerging in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC in order to show that due to political enmity, a false case has been cooked up against the applicant. It is highlighted that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, there is no mention of any act committed by the applicant in his shop, while the story has been improved in his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein the offence is shown to have been committed inside the shop of the applicant, which is open to the public access and in all probability, such offence could not be committed at such place. Admittedly, the medical reports of the victim are clean. The applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 15.10.2023 and criminal history of one case has been adequately explained. Charge sheet in this case has also been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the facility of bail may be extended to the applicant. Thus, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the accused/applicant- Monu Tiwari @ Rohit 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 12.2.2024 Shravan/Praveen

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar Gaur @ Umesh Gaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Raghav Ram Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.