Atul Tiwari vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Atul Tiwari seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2025, under Sections 305(d), 305(e), 331(4), 317(2) , 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S., Police Station Dheena, District Chandauli.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 2.6.2025. It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered as unknown and it has been stated in the FIR that applicant has stolen crown of Goddess Parvati, brass bell having weight of three quintal, some items and some amount kept in gift box. It is further submitted that applicant was arrested during the course of investigation after about 4 days of the incident on 2.6.2025 at a very belated stage. It is argued that false recovery has been shown from the possession of applicant and no independent and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo and arrest of applicant. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of six cases which include most of the cases of the year 2025 and have been explained in para 18 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. It is lastly submitted that co-accused Dheeraj Tiwari and Neeraj Tiwari have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37271 of 2025. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of

¶11

BAIL No. 38140 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS.

¶19

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of 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 IPC/209 of BNS.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S. If in the

¶21

BAIL No. 38140 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

November 3, 2025 RA

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atul Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Yadav vs State of U.P.

Shyam Babu vs State of U.P.

Sonu Ahirwar vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kalariya vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Nigam vs State of U.P.

Amit Garg vs State of U.P.