Allowed

Abhinav @ Chinku Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2022BAIL/33786/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J. allowed a bail application in a case regarding the recovery of a rifle and cartridges. The court held that since the recovered articles were not alleged to be stolen, the facts were sufficient for enlargement on bail without recording findings on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Abhinav @ Chinku Tiwari Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33786 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Abhinav @ Chinku Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Bihari Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, the learned AGA and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶6

2.Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

3.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Section 412 IPC, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

4.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged by the Station House Officer against 21 named accused persons (not including the applicant) and 6070 unknown persons, alleging that when on 02.07.2020, three police teams had gone to the house of named co-accused Vikas Dubey, several accused persons opened indiscriminating fire on the police party resulting in death of seven police persons outside the house and one police officer was dragged inside the house and he was killed there. The police claim to have arrested seven persons, including the applicant, on 01.03.2021 and it is alleged that a rifle and 10 cartridges were recovered from the applicant. The FIR further states that two live cartridges of an AK-47 rifle were recovered from the co-accused Ramji @ Radhey, which had been stolen from the police personnel in the incident that occurred on 02.07.2020.

¶9

5.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 01.03.2021. It has been stated that after his arrest in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021 under Section 7/25 (1-A) and 3/25 of the Arms Act, the police has implicated the applicant in the present case as well as in Case Crime No. 120 of 2021 under Section 216-A IPC, P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, in which the applicant has already been granted bail, a copy whereof has been annexed with the affidavit.

¶10

6.The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. It has not been disputed that the applicant was implicated in three cases after his arrest in the present case and in rest of the two cases, the applicant has already been granted bail.

¶11

7.Per contra, the learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

8.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material available on record at this stage is that the only allegation against the applicant in the FIR is that a rifle and 10 cartridges were recovered from his possession whereas the two stolen cartridges of AK-47 rifle are said to have been recovered from the coaccused Ramji @ Radhey. The articles from the applicant have not been alleged to be stolen articles so as to attract a charge under Section 412 IPC.

¶13

9.In view of the aforesaid discussion and without recording any finding on the merit of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶14

10.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

11.Let the applicant Abhinav @ Chinku Tiwari be released on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Section 412 IPC, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

12.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.12.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.12.22 18:58:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhinav @ Chinku Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav @ Chinku Tiwari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Rohit @ Rohitash Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev @ Gandhi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others