Dismissed

Anil Tiwari @ Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024BAIL/7809/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J. rejected the third bail application of Anil Tiwari accused under Section 376AB IPC and POCSO Act. The Court held that the victim's deposition categorically stated the applicant touched her genital part, making it an unfit case for bail in a child sexual assault matter.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Anil Tiwari @ Anil Kumar Tiwari vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61726

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7809 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Tiwari @ Anil Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra,Rohit Tripathi,Surya Prakash

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This is the third bail application which has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.30 of 2023, under Section 376AB I.P.C., 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jais, District Amethi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the ground that prior to the date of incident, he came late as he was the Driver of the School Van, therefore, he was scolded by the parents of the victim when the applicant replied them. As a result, in retaliation, on the basis of concocted facts, FIR of the case in question was lodged. No such incident took place. He also submitted that before the trial court, deposition of the victim was also recorded in which she also admitted that in the School Van almost 3 to 5 students were travelling and in such circumstances, there is no possibility of such incident. Applicant is in jail since 26.01.2023. All the fact witnesses have been examined. The applicant does not have any criminal history, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant and submitted that as the applicant is Driver of the School Van and the complaint was made by the victim against him for molestation and giving bad touch on her genital part. She also supported the prosecution version in her deposition before the trial court. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents including the statement of victim recorded before the trial court. Victim is aged about ten years old girl and in her deposition, she categorically stated that the applicant was touching her genital part. Therefore, it is not a fit case for bail to be made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected .

¶14

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments of the parties.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Tiwari @ Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Tiwari @ Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saroj Kumar Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Kumar Srivastava / Addl. General Manager (Unit Head), I.T.I. Ltd, Raebareli

Hori Lal and Others Vs Sri Anand Kumar Singh, M.D., Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.

Sharvan Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Anand Kumar Singh, M.D., Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lko.

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Smt. Maya Devi vs Smt. Nidhi Bansal, Chief Development Officer, Sitapur

Nand Lal vs Sri Abhishek Shukla, Distt. Panchayat Raj Officer, Dist. Sultanpur