Allowed

Madhur Tiwari @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2019BAIL/8501/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The court held that since the role assigned to the applicant differed from those assigned to his parents, and he had no criminal antecedents or weapon, he was released on bail with conditions against tampering and intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, intimidation, and restricting criminal activity.

Madhur Tiwari @ Golu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8501 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Madhur Tiwari @ Golu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

By means of this application the applicant Madhur Tiwari @ Golu has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 409 of 2018, u/s 307, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. He has not been assigned the role of giving firearm shot over injured, who subsequently died. Rather it was his father, who was assigned the role of giving two firearm shots by his licensee pistol over injured Hitendra Singh and the other injury over head was assigned to his mother, whereas the accused-applicant is said to have fired by Tamancha, which hit over finger of the hand of informant, and injury report over person of informant is of an abrasion and of simple in nature. There is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case he is released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for during trial.

¶8

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant has vehemently opposed the bail application..

¶9

Perusal of the F.I.R. as well statement of injured Hitendra Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and injury report of Hitendra Singh reveals that two firearm wounds of entry and one firearm wound of exit were found on the person of the injured. Subsequently, the injured Hitendra Singh in his statement has specifically assigned the role of causing two firearm shots by licensee pistol to Manoj Kumar Tiwari and one injury over head was assigned to Savita Tiwari. Meaning thereby no injury over deceased was assigned to the present accused-applicant. The injury caused by the applicant to informant was of abrasion and simple in nature. No Tamancha has been recovered from the applicant. He is of no criminal antecedent. Under all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the

¶10

punishment in the case of conviction and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the view that as the role assigned to the applicant is distinguishable from the roles assigned to Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Satita Tiwari, he may be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant, Madhur Tiwari @ Golu, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.5.2019

¶19

Pcl

Madhur Tiwari @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhur Tiwari @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chand Jyoti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Kamta Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.