High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Applicant :- Adarsh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Tripathi,Ankit Mishra,Prince Verma,Priyanshi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prateek Tewari,Shiv Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.311 of 2021 under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. As per contents of first information report, applicant along with co-accused has allegedly defrauded informant by inducing him to invest on the pretext that a sale deed would be executed with regard to a pond along with fishery business which applicant along with co-accused is allegedly conducting. F.I.R. also indicates various transactions having been made into accounts of nominated persons whereafter also the sale deed was not executed. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of fact that he is relative of main accused Ambesh Kumar Tiwari. It is submitted that a bare perusal of F.I.R. will indicate that applicant has neither given any promises nor accepted any amount in lieu of transaction which is alleged. It is also submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 27.09.2024 with main accused having not yet been arrested. It is also submitted that there is no previous criminal history against applicant has already been explained in affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate the aspect that applicant is co-accused in duping the informant and his participation is well-documented. It is also submitted that applicant is a flight risk with order being issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him whereafter only he could be taken into custody. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under- trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that main gist of allegations has been levelled against Ambesh Kumar Tiwari with transaction also having been made to the said person along with other co-accused. Applicant is under incarceration since 27.09.2024. The main accused Ambesh Kumar Tiwari has not yet been taken into custody. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he was unaware of any process having been issued against him resulting in issuance of orders under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It is undertaken that applicant in case enlarged on bail would cooperate during course of trial. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Adarsh Tiwari, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 prabhat
Applicant :- Adarsh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Tripathi,Ankit Mishra,Prince Verma,Priyanshi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prateek Tewari,Shiv Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.311 of 2021 under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. As per contents of first information report, applicant along with co-accused has allegedly defrauded informant by inducing him to invest on the pretext that a sale deed would be executed with regard to a pond along with fishery business which applicant along with co-accused is allegedly conducting. F.I.R. also indicates various transactions having been made into accounts of nominated persons whereafter also the sale deed was not executed. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of fact that he is relative of main accused Ambesh Kumar Tiwari. It is submitted that a bare perusal of F.I.R. will indicate that applicant has neither given any promises nor accepted any amount in lieu of transaction which is alleged. It is also submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 27.09.2024 with main accused having not yet been arrested. It is also submitted that there is no previous criminal history against applicant has already been explained in affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate the aspect that applicant is co-accused in duping the informant and his participation is well-documented. It is also submitted that applicant is a flight risk with order being issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him whereafter only he could be taken into custody. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under- trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that main gist of allegations has been levelled against Ambesh Kumar Tiwari with transaction also having been made to the said person along with other co-accused. Applicant is under incarceration since 27.09.2024. The main accused Ambesh Kumar Tiwari has not yet been taken into custody. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he was unaware of any process having been issued against him resulting in issuance of orders under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It is undertaken that applicant in case enlarged on bail would cooperate during course of trial. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Adarsh Tiwari, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 prabhat