Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 16 June, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:96781
Reserved on 27.5.2025
Delivered on 16.6.2025
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40769 of 2024
Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh,Satyendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vikas Sahay, learned AGA-Ist for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinay Kumar Tiwari, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 353, 332, 333, 396, 412, 120-B, 34 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.
This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.9.2021.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 8.7.2020. The prosecution took more than two and half years to commence the trial on 1.3.2023 after filing of the charge-sheet on 30th September, 2020. Before the trial court, there are 102 prosecution witnesses and about 13 have been examined. There is no credible evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant to prove that he informed the main accused, Vikas Dubey, about the police raid against him nor his relationship with the gangster, Vikas Dubey, was proved. Number of co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Co-accused, Arvind Trivedi @ Guddan, has been enlarged on bail in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19812 of 2021 apart from number of accused, who are named or unnamed, have been granted bail. Second CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2318 of 2025 of Co-accused, Shiv Tiwari Alias Ashutosh Tripathi, has also been allowed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. He has filed counter affidavit and submitted that applicant and co-accused, K.K. Sharma, who is police personnel, conspired with the gangster, Vikas Dubey, which led to the incident in dispute and eight police personnel were murdered. He has submitted that 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 102. Trial will conclude soon. 5th bail application of co-accused, K.K. Sharma, has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.5.2025.
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
(v) The applicant 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 Court absence of the applicant 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 16.6.2025
Ruchi Agrahari
