Shyam Dhar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16237

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2672 of 2024

Applicant :- Shyam Dhar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State and perused the record. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶7

First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.817 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.PC., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶8

It has been submitted that as per allegations levelled in the first information report, a fraudulent agreement to sale is said to have been executed with regard to Gata No.353 & 354 in the village in question with one agreement to sale being executed by one Jawahar Lal in favour of Amit Agarwal and the other being executed by one Rajmangal Mishra in favour of Ankur Agarwal. The applicant is indicated as being a marginal witness in both agreements to sale. It has also been alleged that both the properties in fact belonged to gaon sabha.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the main gist of allegations in fact have been indicated against the executor of both agreements to sale as well as against the second party to the agreements. He has also adverted to Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2737 of 2023, Amit Agarwal versus State of U.P. and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2012 of 2024, Rajmangal Mishra versus State of U.P. & Anr. to submit that both the said persons

¶10

have been granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court. He has also adverted to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.11.2024 in which previous criminal history in Case Crime No.61 of 2013 has been explained and in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.458 of 2016.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application but does not dispute the fact that the executor and beneficiary of the agreement to sale have in fact been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence being led, appears that the alleged main perpetrators as indicated in the FIR have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as indicated hereinabove. Even otherwise, the aspect of agreement to sale conferring any title upon any party is also an aspect requiring consideration.

¶13

Thus, having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Nathu Singh v. State of U.P. and Others , 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021 , protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicant.

¶14

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Shyam Dhar Tiwari is finally disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of applicant in the abovementioned case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.

¶18

In case of default of any condition the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this order.

¶19

Order Date : - 20.3.2025 Subodh/-

¶20

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

Shyam Dhar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Dhar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar @ Taiyan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sahil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko.

Akash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shyam Dhar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Bhanu Datt vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Ram Baran Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others