Awtansh Tiwari @ Sikku Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1648 of 2025

Applicant :- Awtansh Tiwari @ Sikku Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Mishra,Arun Sinha,Ganga Prasad Mishra,Manoj Kumar Misra,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Kumar Singh,Sachin Shukla,Sharad Pathak,Shivang Tiwari,Vimalesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2.It is alleged in the first information report that at the instance of former Manager Aniruddh Kumar Tiwari, 15-20 persons came by three vehicles in G.S. College of Law, Khajurahat Gandai, Bikapur, Ayodhya and they have beaten the complainant who is the Manager of the said college and staff. They also snatched mobile phones of staff, broken CCTV etc and ransacked the papers etc. On dialing number 112, the police came and the accused persons fled from three vehicles.

¶7

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general allegation of beating the two injured persons has been made against eight named and 15-20 unnamed persons in the first information report. Thereafter, by making improvement in the statement of the complainant under section 161 CrPC, specific role has been assigned to the accused applicant. It is submitted that the injured Shree Kant Mishra was examined on 20.1.2025 at 2.05p.m. through police. The complainant was also examined through police on the same day at 3.20p.m.. However, the police was called via dialing 112 number at 11.26p.m. on the same day and the police came at 11.36p.m. and the first information report was lodged only at 11.57p.m. There is no explanation with the prosecution as to why while medically examining the injured persons, first information report was not lodged.

¶8

It is submitted that the injured Rajendra Yadav, complainant has suffered three simple injuries on non-vital part(s). The second injured Shree Kant has suffered one injury in the form of lacerated wound of 1.5 x 0.5cm on the head. The remaining two injuries are on non-vital part. All the three injuries are simple injuries. The injury report has been placed on record as Annexure No.3.

¶9

One Satya Prakash Mishra has himself got himself examined on

¶10

21.1.2025 at 1.27p.m. He suffered as many as five simple injuries. He is not a witness of the first information report.

¶11

It is next submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history in para 16 of the bail applicant and in para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit. Remand under section 109 BNS was refused and in its place, remand under section 110 BNS was granted. Relevant general diary has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the bail application.

¶12

It is submitted that offence under section 110 BNS is punishable upto seven years in case of hurt. It is submitted that all the other co-accused persons are on bail. The applicant is in jail since 22.1.2025. Charge sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶13

During pendency of this bail application before this court, five counter affidavits have been filed by the complainant only to harass the applicant and because of this, the application could not be decided.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

4.Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed bail application. While opposing the bail, complainant's counsel has raised serious objections regarding conduct of the applicant. He has drawn attention of the court towards the pleadings made in para 16 of the bail application, particularly sub para (i) thereof. He submits that only final report was filed in case crime No.848 of 2011 under sections 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bikapur, district Ayodhya and the case was not decided finally, It is next submitted that in para 16(xii), again a false averment has been made regarding the fact of acquittal in case crime No.415 of 2022 under section 16 (1) of Gangsters Act. The applicant has not been acquitted yet.

¶16

Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the applicant though has been enlarged on bail in some cases, however, he has violated bail conditions.

¶17

5.Learned counsel for the applicant rebutting the above objection has submitted that it is not disputed that the final report was filed. Thereafter, a protest application has been filed. Inadvertently, the earlier counsel mentioned that the case was decided finally. In fact, the accused applicant is on bail in the Gangsters Act. The bail order is on record.

¶18

As regards case under section 110G Goondas Act, the same has been decided after lapse of six months.

¶19

It is lastly submitted that in case crime No.415 of 2022 (supra) under Gangsters Act, all the properties of the applicant were released under Section 16(1) of Gangsters Act. Section 16(1) has been mentioned in para 16(xii). The fact of acquittal was inadvertently mentioned. The release order has been filed along with bail application as Annexure No.21 of the affidavit. It is submitted that this cannot be treated as any misleading statement. It is simply an inadvertent clerical error as the order is already on record.

¶20

6.I have considered the submission and perused the record.

¶21

7.It has not been disputed either by learned A.G.A. or by complainant's counsel that the co-accused persons are on bail.

¶22

It is admitted between the parties that a Writ Petition (C) No.3120 of 2024 pertaining to G.S. College of Law is pending adjudication before this court on civil side pending between the complainant and one Aniruddh Tiwari. The allegation in this first information report is that the applicant went to help Aniruddh Tiwari, thus has committed the offence.

¶23

This court has also noticed that as many as five counter affidavits have been filed by the complainant, one by one. Offence under section 110 BNS Act is punishable upto the period of seven years. Charge sheet has been filed. Rest of the co-accused persons has been granted bail. It is not the case of the complainant that for violation of terms of the bails, he or any of complainants of those crime numbers has filed application for cancellation of bail.

¶24

8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, gravity of offence, improvement made by the complainant while making statement under section 161 CrPC, nature of injuries suffered, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 22.1.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

9.Let the applicant Awtansh Tiwari alias Sikku Tiwari, involved in Case Crime No.14/2025 under sections 191(2), 352, 351(3), 115(2), 324(4), 110 BNS Act, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, district Ayodhya, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶26

satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶27

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶28

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶29

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

(v) The applicant 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 (now section 269 BNS).

¶32

(vi) 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. (now section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now section 209 BNS).

¶33

10.Observation(s) made herein above shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on merit of the case.

¶34

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 kkb/

¶35

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

Awtansh Tiwari @ Sikku Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awtansh Tiwari @ Sikku Tiwari 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

Chand vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Banwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Ravi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Balram Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home Lko

Riyaj Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Achaleshwar Gupta @ Bablu Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko.