Allowed

Baijnath Tiwari v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home. U.P.Lko

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023/1504/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Baijnath Tiwari in a murder investigation. The court held that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, was not involved in the cited previous case targeting a co-accused, and there was insufficient evidence linking him to the crime beyond a property dispute allegation involving others.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in FIR No.581 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 IPC on a personal bond with two sureties.

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42204

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1504 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Baijnath Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home. U.P.Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Mishra,Satya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwini Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

2. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that an FIR was lodged alleging that when the husband of the petitioner did not return home, on inquiry, it was found that he was lying dead in a field nearby. It is further alleged in the FIR that the husband of the complainant had inimical relations with Raj Karan @ Natthu, Meena Devi, Yadunath Tiwari, Durgesh Singh and Arun Mishra, and earlier also these persons had tried to cause harm to the husband of the complainant for which an FIR was lodged under Section 307 IPC.

¶8

3. On the basis of the said allegation, the FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. In view of the statements that all the accused had inimical relations with the husband of the petitioner on account of land dispute, it was apprehended that the applicant had got the murder of the victim done.

¶9

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no evidence against the applicant and it was only Raj Karan who had the property dispute with the husband of the complainant. He further argues that Durgesh Singh against whom, the main allegations were levelled, has already been enlarged on bail. He further argues that there is no direct involvement of the applicant with the incident, he has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 11.11.2021.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand argues that the bail application of Raj Karan Dubey @ Nathu was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2022. It is further argued that the bail application filed by co-accused Yadunath Tiwari was also not pressed as is clear from the order dated 12.04.2023.

¶11

6. He further draws my attention to the statement of the daughter-in-law wherein the applicant has been directly implicated and she is also arrayed as an eye-witness to the incident.

¶12

7. Considering the submission made at the Bar, what transpires is that initially the FIR was registered alleging that on account of a property dispute with one Raj Karan, the accused had decided to eliminate the husband of the complainant as there was an apprehension that he was trying to somehow secure conviction in another criminal case being Case Crime No.345 of 2018. From these documents on record, it is clear that the applicant was not even an accused in Case Crime No.345 of 2018. The statement of the eye witness i.e. daughter-in-law has been recorded after 90 days after the incident without there being any reason for such delay. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would in any way influence the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2021.

¶13

8. The rejection order of co-accused Raj Karan relies upon the applicant pertaining to Case Crime No.345 of 2018 whereas the present applicant was not even the accused in Case Crime No.345 of 2018.

¶14

9. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶15

10. Considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2021 and for all the reasons recorded above, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed .

¶16

11. Let the applicant Baijnath Tiwari be released on bail in FIR No.581 of 2021, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya/Faizabad on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶20

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

12. Needless to add that the trial shall be concluded with all expedition.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 nishant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Baijnath Tiwari v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home. U.P.Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baijnath Tiwari v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home. U.P.Lko

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

Dan Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru the Addl Chief Secy. Deptt of Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Abha Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko and Another

Anjarul Haque Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Kusum Dubey @ Kusub Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dpett. of Home Lko.

Sanjay Pasi Alias Sanjay Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy Home and 3 Others