Raju Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24306 of 2020

Applicant :- Raju Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Nath Tripathi,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali,Nagendra Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Narendra Nath Tripathi and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, counsels for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Krishna, learned counsel for the informant learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 01.11.2019 directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out to the Annexure SA-3 which shows that the order of this court was communicated to the trial court on 20.11.2019. When the bail application was rejected, three prosecution witnesses were already examined. Subsequently, P.W.-4 has only been examined.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that more than a year has passed but the trial has not been concluded. Even if the spread of novel corona virus is taken as an impediment in the functioning of the trial court then six months period granted by this court in November expired in the month of May and the trial should have been concluded before May.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application. His submission is that the witnesses of fact have been examined and only formal witnesses remain to be examined before trial court and therefore there is no justification for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.

¶11

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail application of the applicant but could no dispute the above arguments.

¶12

After hearing the rival contentions this court of the view that

¶13

earlier conclusion of trial court may not be possible since the trial courts are not functioning properly on the account of the spread of novel corona virus. The applicant is in jail since 20.07.2017 and has no criminal history to his credit. He deserves to be enlarged on bail. The trial court is expected to conclude the trial as soon as the normal functioning of the court is resumed without granting any undue adjournment to the prosecution.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Raju Tiwari , in S.T. No. 461 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 366 of 2017, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police StationTarya Sujan, District- Kushi Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶22

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.11.2020 Rohit

Raju Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Aheria Vs State of U.P.

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Janit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.