Allowed

Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024BAIL/431/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 302 IPC, the court held that apart from the confessional statement and recovery pointed out by the applicant, there was no substantial evidence linking him to the offence. Finding the evidence uncorroborated and noting the applicant's lack of criminal history, the court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52804

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 431 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar,Govind Kumar,Jay Narayan Mishra,Sandeep Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the brother of the informant was working in a multistoried building as a Guard and used to go for duty at about 9 PM daily, and on 03.05.2023, the brother of the informant as daily had gone on duty and about 9 AM in the morning, he had told that he was called by the two accused named in the FIR and has not returned. It was stated that the brother of the informant was disturbed for few days and and had also informed that there was some misunderstanding in between him and the accused named in the FIR. Subsequently, the body of the victim was recovered with the face crushed and an apprehension was expressed that the two persons named in the FIR had caused the offence in question. Subsequently, during investigation, the applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon the statement of the person named in the FIR namely Jai Prakash Varma, who had stated that on the day of incident, the victim had come to the home of the said person, he did not implicate the applicant, however, in the statement of one witness Atul Mishra, it was stated that the deceased was meeting the mother of the applicant since long and the applicant had an

¶8

suspicion that he was having illicit relation with the mother of the applicant, as such, the applicant might have committed the offence in question. It was also stated that the applicant and the victim used to drink together. Based upon the said statement and the confessional statement of the applicant recorded thereafter, recovery of brick and a knife were shown from the applicant, thus, he was linked with the offence in question. The post mortem report on record indicates the presence of five injuries, which includes two contusion injury on the head and the neck, multiple contusion on the left arm, a lacerated wound on the right arm and multiple abraded contusion on the fore-arm.

¶9

3 . In the light of the said, the counsel for the applicant argues that apart from the statement of Atul Mishra, raising suspicion against the applicant and his confessional statement, which has no evidentiary value, the recovery allegedly shown at the instance and pointing out of the applicant is not in the presence on independent witnesses and also does not corroborate the nature of injuries reflected in the post mortem report, thus, the applicant has been wrongly apprehended. He further argues that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 12.06.2023, as such, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the applicant was very friendly to the deceased and in terms of the evidences, he was rightly linked with the offence in question, as such, the bail application should be rejected.

¶11

5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, from the material on record, prima facie, apart from the confessional statement and the recovery at the instance and pointing out of the applicant, there is no substantial evidence to link the applicant with the offence in question, the

¶12

evidence of Atul Mishra is also not corroborated against the applicant, even the recovery of the knife cannot be co-related with any of the injury sustained by the deceased. Apart from the inconsistencies highlighted above, the applicant has no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

6. Let the applicant Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.0097 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(c) 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Arun

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Govt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arjun Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Mohammad Imran Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow

Shiva @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Dharmendra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pinki Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Chhotu Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others