Allowed

Vikku Alias Vikas Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024BAIL/8806/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 307 IPC, the High Court at Lucknow Bench considered the applicant's innocence, the absence of injury, and his criminal history. The court noted it was a case of no injury where no fire was opened. Balancing reformative punishment and Article 21, the court allowed bail on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions to prevent tampering and ensure attendance

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, conditional on not tampering with evidence and appearing in court.

Vikku Alias Vikas Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69792

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8806 of 2024 Applicant :- Vikku Alias Vikas Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

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/FIR No. 215 of 2023, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi.

¶8

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 further submits that though there is allegation that the applicant has waved the country-made pistol but no fire has ever been opened which is an admitted fact. He submits that it is case of no injury and the present applicant has never committed any offence but due to anonymity, he has been implicated. Further for putting the gravity in the matter, Section 307 IPC has wrongly been added. He next submits that the applicant has 3 cases criminal history which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 22.05.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and after thorough investigation, Section 307 IPC has also been added and he has 3 cases criminal history and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that this is a case of no injury as no fire has ever been opened which is an admitted fact and the applicant has explained 3 cases criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 22.05.2024 and the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

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 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- Vikku Alias Vikas 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 :- 16.10.2024 kkv/

¶20

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

Vikku Alias Vikas Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikku Alias Vikas Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Nazmeen Akhtar @ Nazzo Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rajesh @ Patela vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sumitra and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Salman Shaikh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Amresh Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Harendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another