Maniram Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 May 2026NABAIL/829/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 BNSS. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant based on the statement of the deceased informant and medical evidence of injuries, rendering the application devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected.

Maniram Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 829 of 2026

Maniram Tiwari

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sectt. Lko.	Home Civil .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Pankaj Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Case Crime No. 55 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2), 105 BNS, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 20.03.2026 has been lodged under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS (old Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC) against the applicant by the injured himself (now deceased), alleging therein that on 12.03.2026, the applicant started hurling abuses and when the informant tried to stop him, the applicant had beaten him with an iron rod and also threatened him for his life.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of seven days. It is further submitted that, as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death has been shown as "cardiogenic shock due to underlying heart disease". It is also submitted that in the column relating to ante-mortem injuries, it has been mentioned that no injuries were seen all over the body and also in the post-mortem report, it has been mentioned that no external injury was found on the body, meaning thereby, no such incident had ever occurred and the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶13

It is further submitted that after the demise of the informant, Sections 117(2) and 105 BNS (old Sections 325 and 304 IPC) were added. It is also submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.

¶14

NABAIL No. 829 of 2026

¶15

¶16

On the other hand, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions received, has submitted that the informant, in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, had made allegations against the applicant as stated in the FIR.

¶17

It is further submitted that there are two eyewitnesses to the incident, namely, Naveen Tiwari and Ram Niwas, whose statements were recorded during investigation and they have also supported the prosecution version as narrated in the FIR.

¶18

It is further submitted that as per the injury report dated 19.03.2026, annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the paper book, the informant (now deceased) was referred for chest X-ray regarding injury no. 2, and in the X-ray, fracture of left ribs of the chest was found. The statement of Dr. Arun Mishra, who conducted the X-ray of the informant (now deceased), has also been recorded during investigation. Thus, all these facts, particularly the statement of the injured witness, make out a case against the applicant and he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶19

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, prima facie it appears that the statement of the informant/injured (now deceased) supports the prosecution case against the applicant and also from the statement of the doctor, as read over by the learned A.G.A., it also appears that the incident had occurred, as alleged in the FIR.

¶20

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 BNSS.

¶21

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶22

May 7, 2026 DiVYa

¶23

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maniram Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Shubham vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

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

Nitesh Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Chand Saroj @ Suraj Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Pankaj Nath vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.