Amarnath Tiwari @ Lodhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5859 of 2025

¶3

Amarnath Tiwari @ Lodhey

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivam Tiwari, Dhananjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned counsel for accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that general allegations have been levelled by both the injured persons against the applicant, co-accused Abhay Pratap Singh @ Shkati Singh and co-accused Shubham Pandey, who has already been enlarged on bail by the Court concerned vide order dated 21.04.2025. Injured-Anuj Tewari, Constable, has sustained simple injuries, whereas injured-Rambabu Singh, S.I. has sustained grievous injuries. However, both the injured(s) assigned general role to the applicant, co-accused-Abhay Pratap Singh @ Shkati Singh. The role assigned to the applicant is similar to that of coaccused Abhay Pratap Singh @ Shkati Singh.

¶10

It is further submitted that applicant has explained the criminal history of three cases in para 23, 24 and 25 and the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 9, 10 and 11 to the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the orders of the co-accused.

¶11

It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 07.02.2025 and, if facility of bail is granted, there is no apprehension that he will flee from the judicial process and he will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will co-operate in speedy trial of the case.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶13

BAIL No. 5859 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

On due consideration to the bail orders of co-accused Abhay Pratap Singh @ Shkati Singh and co-accused Shubham Pandey and the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.02.2025, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶17

Let the applicant - Amarnath Tiwari @ Lodhey, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 35 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 109, 121(1), 132, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station-Kurwar, District-Sultanpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶24

December 8, 2025 Vinay/-

¶25

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶26

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

Amarnath Tiwari @ Lodhey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Tiwari @ Lodhey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Harikesh @ Harikesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Raj Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Madan Nag Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Madhavram Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another