Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 113575 (ALL)

AJAY KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P.

ABAIL/12388/2024 · 2025-05-26

Gautam Chowdhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89975 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12388 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Chandra Dwivedi Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 104 of 2024 (N.C.R. No. 213 of 2023), under Sections 323, 504, 326 of B.N.S., Police Station Koraon, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits initially a non cognizable report was lodged on 26.09.2023 against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant who is the cousin brother of the informant, on the date of occurrence when she was alone the applicant entered into her house and committed marpeet. After the alleged incident the informant was medically examined at a Primary Health Centre, from where she was referred to Motilal Nehru Hospital where after her examination the doctor found that she has got mild conducive hearing loss in her right ear. Thereafter on the basis of supplementary medical report dated 16.04.2024 the said NCR was converted into the F.I.R. was registered on 02.05.2024 under Sections 323, 504, 326 I.P.C. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident and there are material contradiction in the version of NCR as well as in the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant. There is property dispute between the applicant's family and the informant's family, on account of which false and frivolous allegation has been made against the applicant to rope him in false case with ulterior motive. Even if the version of F.I.R. is taken to be true, as per the medical report of the informant, no offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that after investigation the police has also submitted charge sheet. Thus, the applicant has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the proceeding of trial and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and contended that the informant sustained mild hearing loss in her right ear, therefore, offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. The further submit after filing of charge sheet, non bailable warrant has also been issued against the applicant, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence, at this stage. 5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 6. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad