Sushil Tiwari @ Durgadatt Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39951

Court No. - 30

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5156 of 2025

Applicant :- Sushil Tiwari @ Durgadatt Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Narvind Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 55 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B I.P.C, P.S.- Rehra Bazar, District – Balrampur.

¶9

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the amount, which was in credited in the account of the applicant, was repaid back to the account of self help group and this fact has been mentioned in para-11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that identically situated co-accused, namely, Rinku Sharma alias Kaushal Kumar, Atin Saxena, Rambabu

¶10

Gupta and Prakash Saurabh Pal have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.6.2025, 11.06.2025, 27.06.2025 and 13.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5412 of 2025, 5205 of 2025, 5746 of 2025 and 5358 of 2025, respectively. The applicant is seeking parity with the same. He also submitted that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no possibility of tampering the evidence. Further submission is that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail but he could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶12

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the amount, which was incredited in the account of the applicant, was repaid back to the account of self help group; identically situated co-accused have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; charge sheet has already been filed, as such, there is no

¶13

possibility of tampering the evidence; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.04.2025; and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case for bail.

¶15

8. Let the applicant, Sushil Tiwari alias Durgadutt Tripathi , involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(2) 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. He 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;

¶18

(3) 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.; and

¶19

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

¶20

6. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶21

verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

7. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the

¶23

case.

¶24

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Ajit

¶26

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

Sushil Tiwari @ Durgadatt Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Tiwari @ Durgadatt Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Baliram @ Balram Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnakant Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Uday Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suman Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 11 Others