Allowed

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2024BAIL/13171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to the applicant, who was in custody for an offence under section 395 IPC. The court noted prima facie insufficient evidence connecting him to the crime and his explained criminal history. Bail was granted subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, attendance, and potential proclamation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions ensuring no tampering with witnesses, presence for specified trial dates (opening, framing of charge, Section 313 Cr.P.C.),

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:85980

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13171 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Jha,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Sharad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024 under section 395 of IPC P.S.Vibhuti Khand District - Lucknow.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that this Court has earlier granted the bail vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5640 of 2024. He added that police has subsequently added the section 395 of IPC in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024 and he is seeking bail under section 395 of IPC. He added that the applicant has a case criminal history which has satisfactorily been explained and he is languishing in jail since 22.03.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶9

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2024; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence; the applicant has a case criminal history which has satisfactorily been explained coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative

¶11

theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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;

¶15

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

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

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.12.2024/Mayank

¶20

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

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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

Ajay Kumar Jha and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Monu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Shures Varma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Reeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko