Allowed

Chandan Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2022BAIL/8845/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 120B IPC and Section 302 IPC, the Court granted bail to the applicant. The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR, his criminal role was based on co-accused statement, he had no criminal history, and no independent witness testified against him.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions of appearance and cooperation.

Chandan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8845 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandan Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Sharad Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0219 of 2021, under Sections 302, 34, 201, 109, 404, 120B IPC, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra.

¶7

As per the prosecution version the informant who happens to be sister of the deceased received information at 07.40 in the morning that her younger brother Surendra has been found dead on the road side at village Sinduriya and she reached on spot where family members and police were already present. It is further alleged that informant's brother had matrimonial dispute with his wife for the lat 4-5 years and she had received information from the deceased that certain persons including his wife were planning to kill him. The informant therefore apprehended that her brother has been done to death by these persons.

¶8

Admittedly, the applicant is not named in the FIR. It appears that subsequently certain persons were apprehended and the name of applicant has surfaced in the statement of co-accused Yogesh Mishra, who stated that contract was given by the deceased for the murder of his wife and in that connection certain amount etc. was to be paid and ultimately contract killers themselves executed the deceased on account of his failure to pay the amount. In this statement role of murdering the deceased is attributed to Pankaj. The role of applicant is regarding participation in the engagement of contract killers and payment of amount etc. He, however, has been arrested as provisions contained in section 120B IPC have been invoked.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and that chain of events is not complete so as to exclude any other hypothesis except the prima

¶10

facie guilt of applicant. It is stated that role of committing murder has otherwise not been assigned to the applicant. Submission is that no credible material has been collected during the course of investigation against the applicant and his implication at this stage is without any basis. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 20.08.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶11

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶12

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that the applicant is not named in FIR and his name has been disclosed by the co-accused; role of committing murder has not been assigned to the applicant; there is no independent eye witness to the incident; the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶13

Let the applicant - Chandan Tiwari involved in aforesaid case crime 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, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal

¶18

Code.

¶19

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.17 17:53:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandan Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shobha Vs State of U.P.

Amit Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Vs State of U.P.