Allahabad High Court
Ankit Tiwari Alias Ankit Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. on 13 October, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181911
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24099 of 2025
Ankit Tiwari Alias Ankit Kumar Tripathi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Chandra Prakash Awasthi, Saurabh Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Shivakant
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior assisted by Sri Chandra Prakash Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shivakant, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 352, 351(2), 109, 103(1) and 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and eight other named co-accused persons and 5-6 unknown persons are stated to have committed the murder of the husband of the informant and had also caused injuries to Shahid and Harshit Kumar on 30.10.2024 at about 11:48 PM.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about more than eight hours and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. It is further stated that the informant i.e. wife of the deceased person is not an eye witness of the incident, as such, she has simply instituted the FIR on the basis of hearsay evidence.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that injured person-Shahid has sustained injuries on his body and he has allayed general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. No overt act has been assigned to the applicant by the injured person Shahid. Another injured person-Harshit did not sustain any injury and there is no injury report on the record. The injured person-Harshit has assigned the role of applicant having assaulted the deceased with a Danda and had also smashed the head of the deceased person to the window pane whereby the glass pierced his head. The said allegations are per se false. The said witness cannot be believed as he has not sustained any injuries. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that even the post mortem report does not corroborate the said allegations made by the said witness-Harshit who has categorically stated that the applicant smashed the head of the deceased person to the window. There is no injury on head corroborating any allegations of piercing injury by glass.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the allegation that the applicant assaulted the deceased person with a Danda had been made just to add colour to the prosecution story. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
9. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.
10. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
11. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".
12. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
13. It 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.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that the injured-Harshit has not sustained any injuries whatsoever although he has assigned the role of applicant having assaulted the deceased person with a Danda and also the fact that no injuries pertaining to the said glass of the window pane having pierced the head of the deceased person being corroborated by the post mortem report and also the fact that the FIR is delayed by about eight hours and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant-Ankit Tiwari Alias Ankit Kumar Tripathi, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
17. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
18. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
October 13, 2025
Karan
