Amit Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

Order

- "As per office report dated 14.05.2025, which is based upon the letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli dated 10.05.2025 the service upon the opposite party Nos.6 and 7 is sufficient. However, when the case is taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party Nos.6 and 7. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State.

In view of the above, the case is adjourned today. List this case in the 18.09.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call. "

2. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 to oppose the appeal. However, learned AGA is present for the State. In the aforesaid background, the court proceeded to decide the appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 11.03.2025, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive)-I, Raebareli in Bail Application No.331 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.512/2024, under Sections 87, 137 (2), 2 CRLA No. 1181 of 2025 65(1) of BNS, 2023, Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Salon, District - Raebareli.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who has no criminal history, is in jail for the last more than 11 months, is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. As per prosecution version, the appellant enticed away the victim (minor daughter of the informant), though the same is not correct, rather the story indicated in the F.I.R. is false and concocted.

7. It is next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 180 of BNSS would indicate that the victim on her own volition left her parental house and reached Salon Bus Stand where she met with the appellant and thereafter, both reached Unchahar by Bus and from there both boarded the train and went to Kanpur where they resided in Yashoda Nagar Colony as husband and wife and the appellant also established physical relation with the victim.

8. It is submitted that if the aforesaid story of the prosecution is taken on its face value, though not correct, then it is a case of consent. It is for the reason that the age of the victim relied upon by the prosecution is subject to evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court, which is required in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 would indicate that the victim was in touch with the appellant and on the instigation of the appellant she accompanied the appellant to Kanpur where the appellant established physical relation forcefully.

10. It is also stated that from the aforesaid, it is apparent that the story of the prosecution is not intact.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the F.I.R. against the appellant has been lodged either to extract money from the State Exchequer or from the appellant.

12. It is further submitted that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground that appellant is in jail for the last about 11 months and conclusion of the trial is not likely in near future. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3610 of 2020 and Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695. 3 CRLA No. 1181 of 2025

13. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed after taking note of period of incarceration as also the fact that the trial is not proceeding as required by law and therefore there is no likelihood of its conclusion in near future. This fact not been opposed by the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

14. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

15. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the above cited judgments and period of incarceration.

16. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including period of incarceration, statement(s) of victim, story of the prosecution narrated in F.I.R. and also the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

17. Accordingly, the order dated 11.03.2025, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive)-I, Raebareli in Bail Application No.331 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.512/2024, under Sections 87, 137 (2), 65(1) of BNS, 2023, Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Salon, District - Raebareli is hereby set aside.

18. Let the appellant (Amit Tiwari) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence 4 CRLA No. 1181 of 2025 when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

19. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

20. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 26, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

In view of the above, the case is adjourned today. List this case in the 18.09.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call. "

2. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 to oppose the appeal. However, learned AGA is present for the State. In the aforesaid background, the court proceeded to decide the appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 11.03.2025, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive)-I, Raebareli in Bail Application No.331 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.512/2024, under Sections 87, 137 (2), 2 CRLA No. 1181 of 2025 65(1) of BNS, 2023, Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Salon, District - Raebareli.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who has no criminal history, is in jail for the last more than 11 months, is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. As per prosecution version, the appellant enticed away the victim (minor daughter of the informant), though the same is not correct, rather the story indicated in the F.I.R. is false and concocted.

7. It is next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 180 of BNSS would indicate that the victim on her own volition left her parental house and reached Salon Bus Stand where she met with the appellant and thereafter, both reached Unchahar by Bus and from there both boarded the train and went to Kanpur where they resided in Yashoda Nagar Colony as husband and wife and the appellant also established physical relation with the victim.

8. It is submitted that if the aforesaid story of the prosecution is taken on its face value, though not correct, then it is a case of consent. It is for the reason that the age of the victim relied upon by the prosecution is subject to evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court, which is required in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 would indicate that the victim was in touch with the appellant and on the instigation of the appellant she accompanied the appellant to Kanpur where the appellant established physical relation forcefully.

10. It is also stated that from the aforesaid, it is apparent that the story of the prosecution is not intact.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the F.I.R. against the appellant has been lodged either to extract money from the State Exchequer or from the appellant.

12. It is further submitted that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground that appellant is in jail for the last about 11 months and conclusion of the trial is not likely in near future. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3610 of 2020 and Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695. 3 CRLA No. 1181 of 2025

13. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed after taking note of period of incarceration as also the fact that the trial is not proceeding as required by law and therefore there is no likelihood of its conclusion in near future. This fact not been opposed by the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

14. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

15. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the above cited judgments and period of incarceration.

16. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including period of incarceration, statement(s) of victim, story of the prosecution narrated in F.I.R. and also the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

17. Accordingly, the order dated 11.03.2025, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive)-I, Raebareli in Bail Application No.331 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.512/2024, under Sections 87, 137 (2), 65(1) of BNS, 2023, Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Salon, District - Raebareli is hereby set aside.

18. Let the appellant (Amit Tiwari) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence 4 CRLA No. 1181 of 2025 when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

19. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

20. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 26, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench