Allahabad High Court


Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by politician Srikant Tyagi for offences under Sections 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Raj Beer Singh, J. dismissed the anticipatory bail application plea and has observed that 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, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. However, it was directed that in case he appears/surrenders before the Trial court within a period of three weeks from the day of this order, and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided by the court expeditiously, in accordance with settled law.

The counsel for Srikant Tyagi submitted that a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 26.03.2022 alleging that he has enticed away the daughter of the complainant. Further, the victim is a 21-year-old major girl and in her statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal procedure (CrPC), she has stated that she was having affair with Srikant Tyagi for the last two years and that on 27.03.2022, he came to her house and took her to Vallabhgarh and established physical relations with her and later refused to marry her; thus, victim was a consenting party and no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. However, in her statement, recorded under Section 164 CrPC., the victim has made improvement and stated that Srikant Tyagi has forcibly established physical relations with her.

The Court placed reliance on the judgment in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein it was held that “while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration”. Thus, rejected Srikant Tyagi’s anticipatory bail application.

[Shrikant Tyagi v. State of UP, 2022 SCC OnLine All 714, decided on 17.10.2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Amit Kumar, Advocate, Counsel for the Applicant;

Government, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Party.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.