Allahabad High Court
Santosh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 19 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:58195
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 111 of 2025
Santosh Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Sanket Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Arun Kumar, Sanjay Kumar
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanket Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.
2. On 03.03.2025, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, this court had passed the following order:
"On 20.02.2025, the following order was passed:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
This is a matter where the applicant is ready to repay back the amount which was taken in the account of the applicant.
Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken by both the modes.
The opposite party no. 2 shall remain present before this Court on 03.03.2025 at 2 pm.
Learned A.G.A. for the State shall also inform the opposite party no. 2 regarding the order passed today, to the Station House Officer concerned.
List/put up this matter on 03.03.2025, as fresh."
In compliance of the above order, the informant namely Mohd. Azad son of Mohd. Rafeeq is present before this Court, who is duly identified by Mr. Pramod Chaudhary, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
On query being asked, Mohd. Azad submitted that he is ready to take his money back and he has already received Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) and some other amount subsequently and about 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Only) is to be paid to him. He submits that he would have no grievance against the applicant if he (applicant) is ready to repay back the outstanding amount to him (informant), within the time so stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready to pay so due upon him, to the informant namely Mohd. Azad within a period of 90 days from today and prays that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail for a period of 90 days from today and within the aforesaid period, the applicant would pay the entire outstanding amount to the opposite party No.2/ informant namely Mohd. Azad son of Mohd. Rafeeq
From the perusal of the FIR it reveals that there was certain dispute regarding the money transaction regarding a plot and the applicant is ready from the first date to repay the amount in dispute but due to financial hardship, he could not pay the same.
Learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer for bail but he has no objection if the aforesaid amount is repaid back to the opposite party No.2/ informant.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant namely Santosh Tiwari is entitled for interim anticipatory bail for a period of 90 days (Ninety Days) from today and in the aforesaid period, the applicant would pay the outstanding amount to the opposite party No.2/ informant namely Mohd. Azad son of Mohd. Rafeeq as is undertaken by him.
Thus, in the event of arrest in the aforesaid case crime number, the present applicant namely Santosh Tiwari shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that 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;
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
List/put up this matter on 03.07.2025.
The personal appearance of the opposite party No.2/ informant is hereby exempted."
3. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation. The opposite party no. 2 has not filed any counter affidavit.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to financial constraints the applicant could not pay the amount as per the order dated 03.03.2025. He has relied upon the judgment of Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharastra: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs.
20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.
21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court.
22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again."
5. In these circumstances, the failure of the applicant to comply with the undertaking given for making payment to opposite party no. 2 can not be a ground for denial of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no good ground which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken by the Coordinate Bench at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. In view of above, the interim order dated 03.03.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 03.03.2025.
8. The applicant shall appear before the S.H.O./ the court concerned and file a personal bond and two sureties within a period of 15 days from today.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
September 19, 2025
Pradeep/-
