Allahabad High Court
Rahul @ Puneet Tiwari vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49132
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2029 of 2024
Appellant :- Rahul @ Puneet Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Mishra,Akansha Pathak,Anubhav Awasthi,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Mool Shankar Mishra,Vaibhav Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Firoz Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Singh and Ms. Akansha Pathak, Advocate(s) holding brief of Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent no.2 along with Mohd. Anas Siddiqui, Advocate .
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 76 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, under Sections 302, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Poora Kalandar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad.
3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 15.05.2024, it is stated that the appellant, having no criminal history, which has not been opposed, is in jail since 04.04.20324 and the chances of the conclusion of trial in near future are extremely bleak as till date, the prosecution has not produced any witness. This aspect of the case has also not been refuted by the side opposite.
4. It is further stated that the case of the prosecution, in fact, is a case of circumstantial evidence, which could be inferred from the contents of the FIR No. 103 dated 27.03.2024, lodged at P.S. Poora Kalandar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, under Sections 302, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, in relation to which the appellant was apprehended and sent to jail, and also from the statements of the concerned person, i.e., witnesses of the prosecution, recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation.
5. It is further stated that the informant, wife of the deceased, is not an eyewitness, and the witnesses, who could prove the case of prosecution, are Babulal Nishad S/o Vishu Prasad (eye-witness), Deepu Singh alias Amit Singh (eye-witness), Ram Suhawan S/o Ram Kumar (eye-witness), Arjun S/o Rajesh (eye-witness) and Ved Prakash S/o Ram Pal (eye-witness).
7. In continuation, it is also stated that a perusal of the statement of Babulal Nishad on record as Annexure No. 5 as also the statement of Ram Suhawan as Annexure No. 7, would indicate they are not eyewitnesses, and their statement is based upon others.
8. It is further stated that a perusal of the statement of Deepu Singh alias Amit Singh, on record as Annexure No. 6, would indicate that this witness is a planted witness, as on 12:35 hours, the deceased with his phone number i.e. 8953109500 made a call to the phone number i.e. 6307215360 of Deepu Singh alias Amit Singh, and thereafter, on the said phone, this witness, Deepu Singh, made a conversation with the persons named in the FIR. However, to corroborate this statement, the Investigating Officer has not collected the Call Detail Report (CDR).
9. It is also stated that as per FIR at 11:03 hours, on the call of Deenanath Tiwari, who has already been exonerated by the Investigating Officer, after considering the statement of Ved Prakash, the deceased left his house, and thereafter, the deceased was assaulted, who succumbed to his injuries.
10. It is further stated that the eyewitness Ved Prakash is also a planted witness, for the reason that his statement was recorded on 15.05.2024, i.e. after a delay of more than about 2 months and this delay is fatal to the story of prosecution. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in the case of Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2016 SC 1178.
11. Lastly, it is submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, it is apparent that there is no link with the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime indicated in the FIR.
12. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who has no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
13. Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail.
14. They have placed reliance on the statement of the witness Ved Prakash, however, they could not dispute that delay in recording the statement of the witness could be fatal for the prosecution. They also could not dispute that other witnesses are not eye-witnesses.
15. They, however, submitted that on pointing out of the appellant the weapon used, i.e., the blood-stained lathi was recovered.
16. In response, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the recovery is doubtful, as it is from open place, and there is no independent witness to this recovery..
17. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses including the alleged eye-witnesses.
18. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the delay in recording the statement of the eye-witness as also the alleged recovery of weapon as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future as also prima facie this case is of circumstantial evidence, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
19. Orderdated15.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 76 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, under Sections 302, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Poora Kalandar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, is set aside.
20. Let appellant Rahul @ Puneet Tiwari, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
21. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law
22. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
Mohit Singh/-
