Allahabad High Court
Prashant Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6070 of 2021 Applicant :- Prashant Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I.S. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 870 of 2020 under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C.-1860 and Sections 3, 4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial.
As per F.I.R. lodged by the sister of the victim, her younger sister aged about 17 years was studying in Public School, Jaroli and there applicant used to often tease her. Her sister had given him a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 29.10.2020 in order to return the said amount he called her and had taken her to a hotel in family Bazar where she was ravished and some video clippings were also made and it was threatened that the same would be made viral.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is delay of forty days in lodging the F.I.R. of which there is no plausible explanation given. Police had not lodged F.I.R. in this case nor has police given any evidence in support of the victim's statement. There was dispute of only Rs. 4,000/- regarding which applicant has been falsely implicated. There is nothing in medical examination report incriminating against the applicant. He is in jail since 10.12.2020. He has no criminal history. If released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has stated that there is support to the F.I.R. version in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she had come in contact with the applicant through Instagram and later on friendship was developed between them. Phone numbers were also exchanged and thereafter on 29.10.2020, she was called in a hotel where physical relationship was established against her forcibly and a threat was also given when she resisted. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is stated that accused was taking snaps stealthily of the victim and was giving threat to make them viral. She was abused in various ways. On one occasion she was carrying Rs. 4,000/- as school fess and the same was forcibly snatched away from her by the accused. She saw that there were two other unknown persons standing there out of whom one was accused Prashant and the other was Manager of the guest house. On 29.10.2020 at about 11:00 AM all the three of them had caught hold of her and she was dragged inside the guest house and was closed in a room from inside. She was made to inhale something whereafter she fainted, thereafter when she regained consciousness, because of pain, she had full belief that she might have been raped.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of bail, but has not controverted the aforesaid fact.
In view of above arguments, looking to the fact that there are variations in the statement given by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.. In statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she said that she was called in a hotel where she had gone and the money were demanded by the accused which was given by the victim but in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the said money was snatched away by the accused forcibly and she was dragged inside the hotel with the aid of two other persons, one of whom was the Manager and further looking to the fact that applicant had friendship with her initially and there are variations found in the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and there being delay in lodging the F.I.R., these things indicate towards initial consent, taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence, there are no chances of accused fleeing from justice and period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Prashant Tiwari involved in aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 A.P. Pandey