Madhur Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Secy. Thru. Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14240

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1644 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Madhur Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Secy. Thru. Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Bhanu Singh,Rajesh Kumar Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anant Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 209/2024, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Naimisharanya, District Sitapur.

¶9

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 24.10.2024 against the applicant, one Bablu and an unknown person, alleging that the informant's son used to drive an e-rickshaw. While he was waiting for passengers at about 05:35 p.m. on 24.10.2024, the accused persons attacked him. One Arvind Yadav gave this information to the informant and when he reached the place of occurrence, he found his son in a blood soaked condition. The informant took him to a hospital where she was declared to be brought dead.

¶10

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that upon reaching the spot of occurrence, he had seen his son laying in a blood soaked condition, the

¶11

applicant was sitting on front seat of motorcycle and the other two persons were also sitting on it. Co-accused Bablu had blood stains on his hands and clothes. Arvind, who is named in the FIR as the person who gave information of the incident to the informant, stated in his statement that he had seen a scuffle between the deceased and coaccused Bablu. The applicant and another person Rishabh Shukla were standing nereby and were threatening other persons not to intervene in the matter. The post mortem examination report mentions a single stabbed wound on left side of chest and the victim died due to ante mortem injury.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶13

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith material collected during investigation, which has been annexed with the bail application also.

¶14

The informant has also filed a counter affidavit annexing the same material.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that in the FIR, the informant mentions that upon reaching the spot he found that only his son was laying there whereas in his statement recorded during investigation, he has stated that he saw the accused persons also present there; that the eye-witness Arvind has merely stated about presence of the applicant and he is not said to have assaulted the deceased and the deceased suffered a single injury which is said to be caused by a co-accused person, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Madhur Tiwari be released on bail in the aforementioned case 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

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Pradeep/-

¶23

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

Madhur Tiwari v. State of U.P. Secy. Thru. Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhur Tiwari v. State of U.P. Secy. Thru. Home Civil Secretariat 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

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Dileep Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Taekwondo Federation of India, Lucknow Thru. Secy. General (Authorized Signatory) Jimmy R Jagtiani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Institutional Finance, Lucknow and Others

Rahul Chauhan and or. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Anr.

Manish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

Gopal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others