Akhilesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Shourya Parmar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the materials available on record.

¶12

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act against the bail rejection order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, N.I.A/Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lucknow in second Bail Application No. 9966 of 2024 related to F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0146 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 307, 34, 395 and 120-B IPC and Sections 4, 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police StationUmari Begumganj, District- Gonda.

¶13

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime and has not committed any offence, as alleged. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. where four persons, namely, Santosh Paswan, Ram Karan, Ram Lagan and Ritesh are named as well as general allegations have been levelled against 20-25 unknown persons, who have been said to be relatives of accusedSantosh Paswan. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that neither the appellant is named in the F.I.R. nor is he relative of Santosh Paswan.

¶14

CRLA No. 253 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Nothing incriminating, particularly, relating to the Explosive Substance Act, so as to invoke the provision of N.I.A. Act, has been recovered from possession of the appellant. No specific role has been attributed to the appellant, even during the course of the investigation, the specific culpability of the appellant could not be traced out. The appellant is not having any kind of criminal history. Charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if he is granted bail. He has further submitted that the appellant shall abide by all the terms of the bail order. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that coaccused (Saurabh Pandey), in whose confessional statement the appellant has been implicated in the present case, has been enlarged on bail by this Court while allowing Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2025 filed by him.

¶17

Per contra, Sri Shourya Parmar, leaned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the appeal by submitting that this is a case where the appellant is an active member of gang of co-accused (Kuldeep Tiwari) and he has committed the offence in question along with other accused persons. The other accused persons have used country made bomb and attacked at the premises of the complainant, though the learned counsel for the opposite parties have admitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. nor any incriminating material, particularly, relating to the N.I.A Act has been recovered from his possession.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record, without entering into the merits of the trial, considering the fact that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R.; no specific role has been attributed to him; nothing incriminating particularly, relating to Explosive Substance Act so as to invoke the provision of the N.I.A. Act, has been recovered from his possession; he has co-operated during the investigation; he is in jail since 23.07.2024; the charge-sheet has been filed and it would take some time in completion of trial; co-accused (Saurabh Pandey), in whose confessional statement the appellant has been implicated in the present case, has been enlarged on bail and the undertaking of the appellant that he shall abide by all the terms of bail and shall not misuse liberty of bail, we find it to be a fit case to release the appellant on bail.

¶19

CRLA No. 253 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 is hereby set aside.

¶22

Let appellant- Akhilesh Tiwari be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(i) The appellant, if possesses passport, he will deposit the same with the learned Trial Court and would not leave the country, without prior permission of this Court.

¶24

(ii) The appellant shall neither tamper with the evidence, nor influence or approach any witness nor commit any offence.

¶25

(iii) The appellant 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.

¶26

(iv) The appellant shall provide his permanent verifiable address of his residence to the learned trial court and in case of any change, he shall immediately inform the learned trial court.

¶27

(v) The appellant 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 her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(vi) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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 Penal Code.

¶29

(vii) The appellant 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. If in the opinion of the trial

¶30

CRLA No. 253 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

court absence of the appellant 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.

¶33

It is made clear that breach of any of the aforesaid conditions would make the appellant liable for cancellation of bail and/or any other condition, as may be prescribed under law.

¶34

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶35

January 21, 2026 kanhaiya

¶36

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

Akhilesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Shatrunjai Pratap Singh @ Ramesh Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Chandan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Rampher Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Saarthak Sakar Mehrotra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others