Allowed

Rajesh @ Rajanikant Tiwari @ Pussu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC15 May 2023/782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with murder, culpable negligence, and criminal conspiracy. Relying on the informant's lack of eye witness status, uncorroborated enquiry-based information, un-witnessed recovery, and the grant of bail to another co-accused, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, pressure witnesses, and to appear on every date.

Rajesh @ Rajanikant Tiwari @ Pussu Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:33561

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 782 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh @ Rajanikant Tiwari @ Pussu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Tufail Ahmad,Aachary Devarshi Shukla,Aakash Srivastava,Rinku Verma,Santosh Kumar Kanaujia

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Singh Somvanshi

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rinku Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned AGA for the State, Sri Arun Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, Police Station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 01.05.2022 at 14:24 hrs against three named accused persons, including the applicant and an unknown person, stating that the informant's brother, who had gone out of his home at about 10:00 p.m. on 30.04.2022, did not return till midnight and upon making enquiries, the informant came to know that there was a property dispute between his brother and co-accused Ashish Gupta, for which reason Ashish Gupta got the informant's brother killed along with his accomplice.

¶11

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that he came to know that the person whom he had mentioned as unknown in the FIR is Atul Gupta, brother-inlaw of co-accused Ashish Gupta.

¶12

In the custodial statement of the co-accused Ashish Gupta, he

¶13

allegedly stated that the applicant and co-accuced Umesh Mishra had agreed to kill the deceased for Rs. 7 lakh and he had paid Rs. 1 lakh each to the applicant and co-accused Umesh Mishra.

¶14

The prosecution claims that at the time of the applicant's arrest, Rs. 50,000/- were recovered on his personal search and an iron rod and khukhri were recovered from amongst some bushes at an open place on his pointing out. The recovery memo mentions that no independent person had witnessed the alleged recovery.

¶15

In the affiadvit filed in support of the bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶16

The applicant's involvement in another case bearing Case Crime No. 243 of 2013, under Section 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Kheri, District Kheri has been disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant has been granted bail in the aforesaid case by means of an order dated 23.10.2013 passed by this Court in Bail No. 5237 of 2013.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the coaccused Atul Gupta has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 08.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8342 of 2022.

¶18

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant is not an eye witness of the incident; that in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, he stated that upon making enquiry, he came to know about involvement of the accused persons in committing the incident but he did not disclose the source of information; that the recovery allegedly made from the applicant is from an open place and it has not been witnessed by any independent person and that co-accused Atul Gupta has already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Rajesh @ Rajanikant Tiwari @ Pussu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2022, under Sections

¶21

302, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, Police Station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 15.5.2023

¶25

Pradeep/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh @ Rajanikant Tiwari @ Pussu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh @ Rajanikant Tiwari @ Pussu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Shoaib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Babu @ Dilshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Amit Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Rohan Singh Alias Ayush Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Mohd. Affan Siddique Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I