The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of former Shia Waqf Board chairman Syed Waseem Rizvi alias Jitendra Narayan Tyagi in the case of rape and robbery.
A Single Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi.
The anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/ applicant- Jitendra Narayan Tyagi Alias Syed Waseem Rizvi in FIR/Crime under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 392 IPC, Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of enmity with the husband of the informant/prosecutrix and like persons and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the informant/prosecutrix.
It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged with a delay of more than five months and six days and the circumstances under which the FIR has been lodged by moving an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC throws a cloud of suspicion over the whole prosecution story.
It is also submitted that there is no medical evidence in support of the allegations of the victim/informant and the allegations as levelled by the prosecutrix/informant could not be believed in the background of the fact that the applicant has been provided with Y-Plus Security cover by the Government in which 16 police personnels always remain posted with the applicant and as such it is impossible for the applicant to commit the offence in the manner alleged by the informant/prosecutrix.
Senior Counsel said that the applicant has remained the Chairman of the Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh and having regard to the ideology of the applicant and petitions filed by him in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India certain fundamentalists are against the applicant and they were instrumental in lodging this false F.I.R. against the applicant.
Senior Counsel further said that the applicant is a respectable citizen and had enjoyed a very high position of Chairman, Shia Waqf Board and arrest of the applicant in this case shall bring a bad name to his otherwise good reputation and would also injure his liberty. There is no requirement of any custodial interrogation as all the formalities pertaining to the investigation has already been completed by the investigating officer and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise be not available for trial.
Senior Counsel also said that criminal history of 31 cases is being alleged against the applicant, however, in majority of the cases the applicant has not been charge-sheeted or has been acquitted.
Azizul Hasan Rizvi, counsel representing the complainant/ informant submits that the applicant is accused of committing a heinous offence and keeping in view the manner in which the offence has been committed, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
It is further submitted that the applicant is an absconder and enjoying a very high position and is a person having resources and it is under the influence of the applicant the investigation is being delayed and in this regard the informant/prosecutrix was compelled to approach the Court by filing a writ petition, whereby certain directions were given by the Division Bench of the Court and having regard to the security threat to the informant/complainant, the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow was also directed to take appropriate decision with regard to the security of victim.
Counsel for the complainant/informant also relied on Sub-section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and submitted that as the rape has been committed with the prosecutrix by the applicant repeatedly, he is liable for enhanced rigorous imprisonment and keeping in view the fact that he is an absconder and is not appearing before the investigating officer, his application for grant of anticipatory bail be rejected.
The Court noted that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the first information report pertaining to the comission of rape by the applicant with the informant/victim/prosecutrix was lodged by the prosecutrix herself on 15.07.2021.
It has been alleged in the first information report that the applicant at the relevant point of time was having his office at ‘Shia Yateem Khana ‘ situated at Kazmain Road, Lucknow and was also residing there with his second wife.
It is also stated in the FIR that the applicant has also provided a quarter for the residence of the husband of the prosecutrix near Shia Yateem Khana where the prosecutrix was residing with her husband and children. It is also a case of the prosecution that the husband of the prosecutrix was occasionally sent by the applicant out of Lucknow and about five months ago when the husband of the prosecutrix was sent out of Lucknow by the applicant, the applicant had entered into her house at about 10:00 pm and committed rape on her after intimidating the prosecutrix of the life of her children.
It is also stated that thereafter 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 also alleged that on 11th June, 2021 when informant had informed her husband about all the misdeeds of the applicant he approached the applicant to protest about his misdeeds but he was threatened by the applicant and under apprehension husband of the informant had vacated the residence provided by the applicant and since then the prosecutrix is living under apprehension and threat and anything bad may happen to her.
It is also submitted that the allegations of the FIR has been supported by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC. The criminal history of 35 criminal cases has also been alleged against the applicant.
The Court observed that,
Perusal of the case diary which has been supplied by the State would reveal that the first information report of the case could only be lodged after an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) CrPC.
It is also evident that affidavits have also been given by the husband of the informant as well as by the informant stating that he is being pressured to withdraw the case and the informant/victim is also apprehending threat to her life. It is also evident that on various applications moved by the informant/victim, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide orders dated 08.11.2021, 06.01.2022, 13.01.2022, 11.02.2022, 19.02.2022, 15.04.2022 and 13.12.2022 has directed the investigating officer to conclude the investigation in a fair manner and with expedition. The Magistrate vide its order dated 13.01.2022 had also directed the investigating officer to conclude the investigation within 15 days.
It is also evident that during the course of investigation the investigating officer has recorded the statement of witnesses Hasan Jafar, Sartaj Alam, Syyed Ali Ammar Rizvi, Zafar Abbas, Hasan Raza, who have stated that they have seen the applicant on many occasions, going towards the quarter of the informant in absence of her husband.
“Perusal of the case diary would also reveal that it was on 20.12.2022 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.
It is also evident that vide order dated 30.01.2023 non-bailable warrants have also been issued against the applicant by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the informant/victim that applicant is an influential person and it is on account of his influence he could not be traced and he has also not co-operated in the investigation and it is under his influence the investigation of the case has been delayed. Having regard to the various orders passed by the Magistrate directing the investigating officer to conclude the investigation at the earliest, prima facie there is substance in the apprehension of informant/victim. The State in its instructions has mentioned a long criminal history of the applicant comprising 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.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons placed above, I do not find any good ground to provide protection from arrest to the instant applicant”, the Court further observed while rejecting the anticipatory bail application.