High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77857 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12908 of 2025 Applicant :- Annu @ Anurag Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Rajneesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Giri Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Annu @ Anurag Tiwari, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.472 of 2024, u/s 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 352, 351(2), 109, 103(1) and 324(4) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali District Fatehpur. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 31.10.2024 by Smt. Manorama @ Manu naming the applicant and eight other persons along with 5-6 unknown persons alleging therein that she is resident of Lucknow. Her husband at present lives opposite to M.P.N.S school on Bisauli road. On 30.10.2024 at about 11.48 p.m. the accused persons came to his house and hurled abuses, they were armed with sharp-edged weapons and illegal fire-arm. Her husband tried to stop them on which they forcibly entered inside the house and started firing with their weapons on her husband. Annu Tiwari and Alok Tiwari along with their companions assaulted him with sharp-edged weapons in order to murder him and in between Shahid who intervened was also attacked with sharp-edged weapons by the said persons. In the said incident her husband and Shahid received serious injuries. The said persons fired with their weapons inside the house and broke the articles there. They also assaulted Harshit Kashyap who also used to live with her husband. Her husband was taken to the hospital in a serious condition where he died. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. In the present incident Dileep Saini died who was found to have received nine injuries in all amongst which there was one lacerated wound, two incised wounds, two stab wounds, two abrasions, one contusion and one multiple contusion. The left kidney was lacerated, the skull on dissection was found to be containing haematoma present on both parietal region, Peritoneum was lacerated, spleen was lacerated and the left kidney was also lacerated. The cause of death opined as due to ante-mortem injuries (sharp and stab). Shahid was admitted in GSVM Medical College, Kanpur on 31.10.2024 and was found to have received a stab injury on his abdomen. He was treated and then was discharged on 2.11.2024. It is undisputed that Harship Kashyap who was also stated to have been assaulted was not medically examined. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that general role of assault has been assigned to the applicant along with eight other named accused and 5-6 unknown persons upon the deceased and the injured. It is submitted that Shahid, the alleged injured during investigation also assigned common and general role to the applicant along with other persons of assault. It is submitted that Harshit Kashyap, the other alleged eye-witness in his statement during investigation has stated that Babloo and the applicant Annu @ Anurag Tiwari assaulted the deceased with an iron rod from behind and Suneel Rana and Vipin Sharma and Jati caught-hold of him and assaulted him with fists and elbow and then Alok @ Akku assaulted Dileep Saini with a knife. Later on Ankit Tiwary banged the head of Dileep Saini on the glass in the cabin which broke and got embedded and he received injuries. It is submitted that the same is an afterthought in order to falsely implicate the applicant and improve the prosecution version. It is further submitted that Mohd. Adnan, an alleged eye-witness has also reiterated the same version as stated by Harshit Kashyap. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents apart from the present case but after the present case one case under the Arms Act has been registered, para 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 10.4.2025 has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that co- accused Sunil Rana has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7714 of 2025, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.21 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohd. Afzal alias Jonty and Vipin Sharma have also been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.3.2025 and 2.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9772 of 2025 and 10669 of 2025, copy of the said orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. The applicant is in jail since 6.11.2024. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR, there is an injured witness and there are other eye-witnesses also. It is further submitted that the eye-witnesses have assigned the role of assault on the applicant with co-accused Babloo on his head with an iron rod and the medical evidence corroborates with the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the role has been specified on the applicant being assault on the head of the deceased Dileep Saini. The case of the co-accused persons who have been granted bail are distinguishable inasmuch as their roles are different from that of the applicant. It is further submitted that the bail application of co-accused Babloo @ Jitendra Patel has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13815 of 2025, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There is an injured witness and other eye-witnesses also have assigned the role of assault on the applicant with co-accused Babloo on head of the deceased with an iron rod. The medical evidence corroborates with the prosecution story. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused persons who have been granted bail. The bail of co-accused Babloo @ Jitendra Patel has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad