Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55716 (ALL)

NAVNEET TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/15878/2025 · 2025-05-16

Krishan Pahal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82009 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15878 of 2025 Applicant :- Navneet Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 30.4.2025. 3. Heard Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 226 of 2025, U/S 376(2) (N), 506 IPC and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 5. The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and continued to do so for a substantial period of time. The applicant recorded certain indecent videos of the victim and threatened her to make them viral. He had again come to her house on 22.2.2020 and committed rape with her and blackmailed her and took Rs. 50,000/- as extortion money from her. There are allegations that the applicant had again established corporeal relationship with her in the month of December, 2023. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 7. FIR is delayed by more than 5 years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. An application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 11.9.2024, which itself is delayed by about 4 years. 8. The victim is major. As per ossification test report, she is 20 years old. Her age is disputed in her several school documents at different stages. The provisions of POCSO Act have been deleted by the investigating officer. 9. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.4.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 10. The bail application has been opposed but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant has not been disputed. CONCLUSION: 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR, the delay in moving the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Navneet Tiwari involved in aforementioned case crime number 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 13. 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. 14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad