Amit Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36494

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 710 of 2025

Appellant :- Amit Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

At the very outset, it was brought to the notice of this Court that notice was sent to the informant / opposite party no.2 of this case but the notice was not served upon him and according to the report sent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, no person resides at the address mentioned on record. it was also brought to the notice of this Court that in the trial court itself notice was not served upon the informant as he was not found at the addres given on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Amit Kumar Tiwari with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur in bail application no.3552 of 2024 (Amit Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.) and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.174 of 1996 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 336 IPC and 3 (1) (X) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur.

¶9

Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 24.2.1996 at about 12:00 noon, when the informant of this case was leaving for his home from school after the class was over, the accused appellant, who resides nearby to school, came there alongwith his 6-7 associates, hurled caste related abuses and all of them made an assault upon the informant with chain, brick and hockey. On raising alarm, the other students and teacher of the school reached there and rescued the informant.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

¶11

appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this matter. It is also submitted that all the sections are bailable and triable by the Magistrate except the offence under section 3 (1) (X) S.C./S.T. Act. It is also submitted that simple injuries have been found on the body of the injured. The allegation of marpeet is alleged against the appellant and his associates assigning a general role but without fair investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet only against the appellant in the aforesaid sections. It is also submitted that earlier the appellant was on bail before submission of the charge-sheet but since he was never informed that charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter, punitive processes were issued against him. It is also submitted that an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 19233 of 2024 was preferred by the appellant before this Court wherein vide order dated 5.7.2024 the appellant was directed to appear before the court concerned within three weeks seeking bail from the court concerned. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur. It is further submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. The appellant is having no criminal history to his credit and has been languishing in jail since 3.1.2025. On the aforesaid ground it has been submitted that the present appeal deserved to be allowed.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the present appeal and the attention of this Court was drawn towards the bail rejection order passed by the concerned Special Court. It is mentioned in the said order that on 8.3.1996, bail was granted to the present accused appellant but thereafter on his absence on 20.12.1999, non-bailable warrant was issued against him, however, subsequently the said order is issue non-bailable warrant was cancelled vide order dated 18.4.2000 but again he remained absent on 21.6.2000 and non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused appellant and subsequently on 24.11.2000, an order to issue process under section 82 Cr.P.C. and notice to sureties was also passed by the court concerned and subsequently on 12.2.2001, an order was passed to issue process under section 83 Cr.P.C.

¶13

against the appellant. However, on 24.12.2002, again on appearance of the accused appellant, the order of non-bailable warrant was cancelled by the court but again on 17.1.2003, he became absent and again non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that due to the conduct and abscondence of the accused appellant even charges have not been framed within a period of 25 years. It is further submitted that in view of that, the present appellant is not entitled for any mercy from this Court by way of granting bail to him.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶15

After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the evidence available on record and the impugned bail rejection order and also taking into account the conduct of the accused appellant, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to release the appellant on bail. The Court concerned passed a detailed reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the present criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 ss

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rachit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Vir Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Suman Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulzar Fatima vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Archana Singh vs State of U.P. and Another