Vinod Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52269

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11652 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinod Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saumitra Dwivedi,Sharad Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Saumitra Dwivedi and Sri Sharad Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 301 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 351(3) BNS and 3/21 The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, Police Station Jathaura, District Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation, being agent of the LUCC company he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith others.

¶9

He further submitted that as per allegations, after receiving deposits from its investors, the company later on did not return their amount but being agent of the company, applicant cannot be held liable for the same.

¶10

He further submitted that however, in the present matter, applicant has also been challaned for offence under section 111 BNS but there is no cogent evidence against him with regard to the offence of organized crime.

¶11

He further submitted that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 16 other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. It is further submitted that applicant was having one previous criminal history to his credit and alongwith the present matter, he has been made accused in as many as 15 other cases with similar

¶12

allegations.

¶13

He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 29.08.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is the agent of LUCC company and he was having previous criminal history of only one case.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

However, as per allegation applicant was agent of LUCC company and subsequently after receiving deposits the maturity amount has not been returned to the investors but considering the fact that he is the agent of the company, submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant at this stage, cannot be ruled out.

¶17

Further, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under section 111 BNS i.e. Organized Crime but this Court finds merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant with regard to the offence of Organized Crime.

¶18

Further, however, apart from the present case, it appears applicant is having criminal history of 16 other cases but he was having previous criminal history of only one case and it appears alongwith the present matter, he has been made accused in as many as 15 other cases with similar allegations.

¶19

Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 29.08.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant- Vinod Tiwari , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates

¶24

fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 AK Pandey

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Tiwari v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Yadav vs State of U.P.

Manish vs State of U.P.

Upendra Alias Bhanvar Pal vs State of U.P.

Smt. Yashoda vs State of U.P.

Krishna Raikwar vs State of U.P.