Kanhaiya Tiwari vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Kanhaiya Tiwari seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.608 of 2025, under Sections 109, 118(1), 333, 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Kasia, District Kushi Nagar.

¶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 due to ulterior motive. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.9.2025. It is submitted that applicant has not caused any injury to the injured and injured/victim is in close relationship with the applicant. It is further submitted that only simple injuries were said to be sustained on the non-vital part of the injured and as per medical report the injured had sustained stitched wound, contusion on her palm but no grievous injury has been sustained by injured on her vital part. It is argued that the injured has stated in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that applicant had entered her house with the intention to cause injury on her neck and when she tried to protect herself she sustained injury on her hand. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 17.10.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of

¶11

BAIL No. 42379 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

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

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶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 paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶19

(iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶20

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶21

BAIL No. 42379 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23