Rajneesh Tiwari @ Kallu v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11696 of 2023 Appellant :- Rajneesh Tiwari @ Kallu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Faizan Siddiqui,Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of appellant is taken on record. Sri Amit Kumar Tripathi, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Chhitrakoot in Bail Application No.969 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 168 of 2023, under Sections 376-D, 328, 354-A, 307 IPC & Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot. As per the allegations made in the first information report, on

19.07.2023 at around 3 pm, prosecutrix was taken away by named accused Kamta Prasad and two unknown accused persons. She was compelled to drink liquor by them. Thereafter, she became unconscious. Later on, she found herself in a government hospital at Mau. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent, not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that even the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not disclose the name of appellant. It is further submitted that named accused Kamta Prasad during his confessional statement disclosed the name of present appellant. It is further submitted that statement of the prosecutrix was recorded as PW1 before the trial court wherein she has categorically denied that she know the appellant and present appellant had not committed rape with her and on this score witness had turned hostile. The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since

23.07.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Let the appellant, namely, Rajneesh Tiwari involved in the above Case be released on bail on 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.

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

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

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

(v) The appellant 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 AKT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad