Allowed

Kanhaiya Tiwari @ Mannu Prasad Tiwari @ Ashish Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024/918/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed against an order denying bail. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the appellant entitled to bail as co-accused were on bail and the trial was not near conclusion. Grant bail with specific conditions regarding court attendance and no adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Appellant granted bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to additional conditions regarding attendance and no adjournments.

Kanhaiya Tiwari @ Mannu Prasad Tiwari @ Ashish Tiwari Vs… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23775

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 918 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Kanhaiya Tiwari @ Mannu Prasad Tiwari @ Ashish Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Manish Singh Chauhan, Advocate, on behalf of opposite party no.3 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 162 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 282 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mandhata, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 5.10.2023. He also submits that earlier appellant was implicated in four cases and in all cases, he is on bail (bail orders are annexed as annexure No.13 to the appeal). He further submits that during the course of trial, three witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution version. He further submits that the co-accused persons, namely, Vipin Singh, Swayam Singh @ Shivam @ Som Singh & Anoop Tiwari have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2023, 12.6.2023 & 21.2.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 442 of 2023, 1008 of 2020 & 337 of 2024 respectively, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant but they do not dispute the fact that co-accused persons, namely, Vipin Singh, Swayam Singh @ Shivam @ Som Singh & Anoop Tiwari have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as bail orders of the co-accused persons, appellant is also entitled for bail.

¶12

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶13

Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 162 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 282 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant Kanhaiya Tiwari @ Mannu Prasad Tiwari @ Ashish Tiwari , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence,

¶17

without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the appellant 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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.3.2024

¶21

Gaurav/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanhaiya Tiwari @ Mannu Prasad Tiwari @ Ashish Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Tiwari @ Mannu Prasad Tiwari @ Ashish Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagat Singh Bisht vs Rajiv Kumar Srivastav, Addl. General Manager R.B. I.T.I. Ltd., Rae Bareli

Dr. Mohammad Shadab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Lko. and 5 Others

Rahul Dwivedi @ R.D. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ganesh Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Aman Dixit @ Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko