Allowed

Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024/9287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench considered a criminal miscellaneous bail application. The applicant sought bail under the parity principle applied to a co-accused, arguing no recovery was made against him, no crime of firing was assigned, and he had no criminal record. The court found him a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59188

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9287 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 27.6.2024 at about 6.30p.m., father of the informant was going home from Padumpur Bazar. Near the village approximately 500 metres away from home, all of a sudden 8 persons on five motorcycle(s) came and Radheyshyam, Shivan, Vikas Vishkarma and Prabhakar Tiwari and four unknown persons by hurling abuses attacked on his father with an intent to kill by fire arms. His father suffered injuries in the leg. His condition is serious.

¶9

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the statement of the injured shows that role of firing is not assigned to the applicant; rather it has been assigned to Abhishek Shukla, co-accused. The applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold of his motorcycle and exhortation. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The statement of injured has been recorded after six days of the incident.

¶10

It is submitted that no test identification parade has been conducted. Nothing has been recovered from the applicant. Case of the applicant is different from the case of co-accused

¶11

Abhishek Shukla. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 29.6.2024.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Rangeela @ Rajat Verma dated 13.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8706 of 2024. 4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, there is no recovery from the applicant, no test identification parade has been conducted, role of firing is not on the applicant, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail as well as the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Rangeela @ Rajat Verma (supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

6.Let the applicant Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj , involved in Case Crime No.191 of 2024 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 34 I.P.C., 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkarnagar 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶18

witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) 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. (v) 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 Code.

¶21

(vi) 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.

¶22

7.The application is allowed on the grounds of parity accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 30.8.2024

¶24

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bajrangi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Vitarani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Up Lko. and Another

Vijay Kaumr Mishra vs C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police C.B.I. /EO-1 New Delhi

Ruchi Agahari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Shadab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko