Indrakant Tiwari v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45406 of 2023 Applicant :- Indrakant Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shanker Mishra,Chandra Bhushan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyadeep Gautam Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

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

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegation made in the first information report, the prosecution case is that nominated accused persons, who are four in number have assaulted the three injured as a result of same, injured have suffered injuries. 3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the injury report of Ram Asre Mishra, which is at page 35 of the paper book and the injury report of Brijesh Kumar Mishra, which is at page 39 of the paper book. Both have suffered injuries, however, the main injury is on temporal region. He further submits that NCCT of head was conducted where fracture on temporal bone is seen. It is further submitted that general role of assault has been assigned. There is no specific role assigned to any person. It is also submitted that the dispute arose on account of land dispute at the spur of moment where both sides have suffered injuries even the applicant has also suffered injury and the first information report has been lodged by the applicant against informant and his family members. It is submitted that co-accused Shiv Muni Tiwari and Ravikant Tiwari have already been enlarged on bail by orders dated 2.11.2023 and 2.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46578 of 2023 and 46468 of 2023 copies of which have been produced for perusal and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 4 of the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.9.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail application, however, he does not dispute the parity.

¶5Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶6Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶7In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶8In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶9The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC

¶51Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶10No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶11It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶12Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶13Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14Let the applicant Indrakant Tiwari involved in Case Crime No. 50 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. 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. vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶15In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 D. Tamang High Court of Judicature at Allahabad