Raj Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43678

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6976 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Misra,Ravindra Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.8 of 2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Anti Corruption, Jhansi, District A.C.O. U.P.

¶9

In the prosecution case it is alleged that trap team constituted by the District Magistrate has arrested the applicant red handed and found Rs.6500/- which were given to the applicant by the friend of the complainant. Apart from Rs.6500/-, Rs.14,700/-, Rs.660/-, Rs.28,000/- are also alleged to have been recovered from the different pockets of the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that money recovered from the applicant has been explained by him in paragraph 14 of the bail application. He submits that as per the letter dated 21.05.2025 written by Prabhagiya Nideshak, Samajik Vaniki Prabhag, Lalitpur it was Bhagwati Saran Soni who was having the charge of issuing TP permit and not the applicant. No demand was made by the applicant. The trap team members have not found any conversation of the applicant neither any videography of the incident has been made. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The offences are punishable up

¶11

to maximum period of seven years. Applicant has no criminal history. The charge-sheet in the case has been filed. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 13.05.2025.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.05.2025 having no criminal history, charge-sheet in the case has been filed, maximum punishment is seven years, offences are punishable up to maximum period of seven years and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Raj Kumar Tiwari be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶21

(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 Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶22

(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 Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶23

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Harikesh Pandey @ Harikesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jagdish Mahawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Hasnain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Meraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Rakesh Rajneesh @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another