Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Jitendra Tyagi In Case Over Allegations Of Raping Driver's Wife Repeatedly

The Allahabad High Court has DENIED anticipatory bail to Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi in connection with a rape case registered against him in the year 2021 by the wife of his former driver.Noting that non-bailable warrants have been issued against Tyagi by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow last month, the bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan did not find any good ground to provide him protection from arrest.Significantly, the Court also took into account the apprehension raised by the informant/victim about Tyagi's influence due to which he could not be traced and he also did not cooperate in the investigation leading to a delay in the probe"Having regard to the various orders passed by the Magistrate directing the investigating officer to conclude the investigation at the earliest, primafacie there is substance in the apprehension of informant/victim. The State in its instructions has mentioned a long criminal history of the applicant comprising of 35 cases starting from the year 1994 till 2022 and in the considered opinion of this Court, criminal antecedents and conduct of the accused is a relevant factor at the time of consideration of plea of anticipatory bail," the Court observed.Further, noting that despite various orders passed by the Magistrate, the investigating officer has not concluded the investigation in the case, the Bench observed that it is expected from the IO to conclude the investigation without any further delay and submit a report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., at the earliest.#JustIN | [2021 Rape Case]The #AllahabadHighCourt DENIES anticipatory bail to Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi [@JitendraNTyagi].Investigating officer has also been directed to conclude the investigation in the case without any further delay. pic.twitter.com/jE9mK9WH28— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 17, 2023The case against TyagiThe case against Tyagi is that he raped the wife of his former driver in the year 2021. The FIR in the case against Tyagi had been lodged by moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It was alleged therein that Tyagi, with whom her husband was working as a driver, had raped her after intimidating her of the life of her children.Thereafter, the allegations state, the applicant used to commit rape with the prosecutrix occasionally, after sending her husband outside Lucknow and she remained silent as she was threatened and was also apprehended and intimidated.It is the further allegations that on 11th June 2021, when the informant informed her husband about all the misdeeds of Tyagi, he approached Tyagi to protest about his misdeeds but he was threatened by Tyagi and under apprehension, the husband of the informant vacated the residence provided by the applicant.On the other hand, seeking protection from arrest in the instant case, Tyagi moved the High Court by arguing that having regard to his ideology and petitions filed by him in the #SupremeCourt, certain fundamentalists are against him and they were instrumental in lodging the false Rape case against him.It was also argued by him that he has been provided with Y-Plus Security cover by the Government in which 16 police personnel always remain posted with him and as such it is impossible for him to commit Rape in the manner alleged by the informant/victim.Lastly, it was also submitted that he is a respectable citizen and had enjoyed a very high position of Chairman, Shia Waqf Board, and his arrest, in this case, will bring a bad name to his otherwise good reputation and would also injure his liberty.Court's observations and orderAt the outset, the Court perused the case diary of the case to note that several affidavits were given by the husband of the informant as well as by the informant stating that he is being pressurized to withdraw the case and the informant/victim is also apprehending threat to her life. The Court also noted that on various applications moved by the informant/victim, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow passed at least 7 orders directing the investigating officer to conclude the investigation in a fair manner and with the expedition.It was further noted by the bench that during the course of the investigation, the IO had recorded the statement of certain witnesses who stated that they have seen the applicant on many occasions, going towards the quarter of the informant in absence of her husband. The Court also observed that it was on 20.12.2022, that the investigating officer for the very first time started searching the whereabouts of the applicant and thereafter on various occasions the applicant was searched but his whereabouts could not be traced.Against this backdrop, noting that there was no good ground to extend him the benefit of anticipatory bail, the Court rejected his plea by directing that a copy of its order be communicated to the concerned investigating officer through the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, forthwith for...

Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Jitendra Tyagi In Case Over Allegations Of Raping Driver's Wife Repeatedly

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags