High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Shikha Sinha, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.317 of 2024 under Sections 109, 324(4), 351(3), 103(1), 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the B.N.S.') registered at Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh.

3. The F.I.R. in the present case was lodged on 06.08.2024 at 23:26 hours against the applicant and his brother Vipin, stating that Harikesh Kumar Tiwari - elder brother of the informant's husband and his cousin Manoj Shukla, were going on a bullet motorcycle to Lalganj Tehsil in connection with a bail matter at 10:00 a.m. on 05.08.2024. As soon as they reached near Raipur petrol pump at about 10:30 a.m., the applicant came there driving a white Bolero, the registration number whereof is not known, and he hit the bullet motorcycle from the left side due to which Harikesh Tiwari got seriously injured and Manoj Kumar sitting on the pillion seat also suffered injuries. The Bolero ran away. The FIR states that for the past few days the accused persons were threatening to kill the victims because of some old animosity.

4. Harikesh Tiwari died during treatment and his postmortem examination was conducted on 19.08.2024. The postmortem examination report mentions a contusion of size 12 cm X 6 cm on right side of head above right ear, a contusion of size 6 cm X 4 cm on back of head, an abraded contusion of size 6 cm X 3 cm on top of right shoulder and an abraded contusion on medial aspect of right foot. The cause of death has been opined to be coma due to ante-mortem head injuries.

5. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that her husband is in jail in connection with some matter. There is a property dispute between family of the informant and the accused persons. Father-in-law of the informant and father of the accused persons are real brothers. The accused persons had entered into an altercation with Harikesh Tiwari at the time of sowing paddy and police had challaned Vipin Tiwari and Harikesh Tiwari (the deceased) and the deceased was going for bail in that matter on the date of the incident alongwith Manoj Kumar Shukla and Sunil Kumar Shukla. As soon as they had reached near Raipur petrol pump, a white Bolero of unknown registration number hit the bullet motorcycle of Harikesh Tiwari due to which they fell down and both of them suffered injuries. Harikesh Tiwari was taken to C.H.C., Lalganj from where he was sent to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh. He was then referred to Allahabad, but he was being treated in a private hospital at Lucknow. Manoj Shukla and Sunil Kumar Shukla had told that the Bolero was following them from Basantganj but as curtains were installed in it, the persons sitting in the vehicle could not be seen.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

7. A copy of FIR No.201 of 2021 has been annexed with the bail application which was lodged by the applicant against three persons-(i) Kamlesh Tiwari (husband of the present informant Meera Tiwari) (ii) Adarsh Tiwari S/o Kamlesh Tiwari and (iii) Devendra Tiwari father of Kamlesh Tiwari, stating that due to a dispute regarding plucking mangoes by the informant's niece aged 16 years, the accused persons had fired at her causing serious injuries to her. The informant's husband is in jail in connection with that case. However, the informant claims that the accused persons had entered into an altercation with Harikesh Tiwari at the time of sowing paddy and police had challaned the applicant and Harikesh Tiwari and the deceased was going for bail in that matter on the date of the incident.

8. During investigation it came to light that the third person sitting in Bolero was Sachin Mishra @ Adarsh Mishra and he has been granted bail by means of an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2963 of 2025. Other co-accused person,namely, Vipin Tiwari has also been granted bail by means of an order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.3971 of 2025

8. The learned AGA has stated that the case diary does not make a mention of any injury suffered by Manoj Kumar Shukla. The failure to record the findings of medico-legal examination report of Manoj Kumar Shukla prima facie indicates he had not suffered any injury.

9. The learned AGA has also submitted that it is recorded in the case diary that the Bolero Car and the Bullet Motorcycle were seen in the footage of CCTV several cameras. However, in none of the CCTV footages the registration number of the Bolero car or the persons sitting in it could be seen.

10. The learned A.G.A has pointed out that the investigation has been transferred to the Inspector (Crime) on 05.02.2025. He has further stated that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has already been submitted on 16.05.2024.

11. When we examine the facts of the case, it appears that the allegation in the present case is that a Bullet Motorcycle was hit by a Bolero car and as per the statement of the informant and the observations made by examination of numerous CCTV footages, neither the registration number of the Bolero nor its occupants could be seen. The informant claims that the accused persons killed the deceased and they tried to give it a semblance of an accident. Even as per the informant, the incident has a semblance of an accident. The applicant and the accused persons are descendants of the same ancestor and they are fighting for the same piece of land left by the applicant's grandfather. There appears to be no serious likelihood of the applicant fleeing from the process of law. It has been stated in the bail application that the informant's husband is accused of committing an offence under section 307 I.P.C. in which applicant's niece had suffered a gun-shot injury on her shoulder from and he is in jail in connection with that case. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the informant's family members also do not have clean antecedents.

12. Without making any observations which may affect the outcome of trial, I am of the view that the facts that the F.I.R. was lodged 37 hours after the incident; there is an old animosity between the parties; the registration number of the Bolero which had hit the motorcycle has not been identified even after examination of footages of numerous CCTV cameras; the applicant has not been connected with that Bolero vehicle and two co-accused persons have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Ambikesh Tiwari @ Ambikesh Kumar Tiwari be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

15. Before parting with the case, the Court is constrained to put on record that although this bail application could have been decided by a short order in a short period of time, the learned Counsel for the informant has made very elaborate submissions on several aspects of the matter. This Court had to point out that submissions advanced while opposing a bail application should not deal with the merits of the case and that there are 44 fresh matters and 200 listed matters to be dealt with by the Court and, therefore, he should be considerate towards the other litigants also but he persisted, although in an extremely respectful manner, that he is duty bound to advance submissions in the interest of his client. He is correct in a way, but at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that while deciding a bail application, the Court is not expected to hold a mini trial and this Court also tried to decide the bail application on brief consideration of the relevant points, without going into unnecessary details. However, when a Counsel persists and advances detailed submissions, the Court has to record the same and deal with the same, as not mentioning the submissions of a learned Counsel and not dealing with the same, would give rise to a genuine reason for grievance to the learned Counsel. This has resulted in various observations being made in the order, which could have been avoided but for the persistence of the learned Counsel for the informant. Therefore, as an abundant precaution, it is clarified that any observation made in this order will not affect the merits of the matter.

16. This long order has also resulted in spending more than reasonable time of the Court in deciding one bail application at the cost of several other matters, which loss cannot be made good. In Banwari Lal Kanchhal v. State of U.P.: 2023 SCC OnLine All 2510 this Court had observed that: - "85. It is often said that the Judges and the advocates are wheels of a chariot. For enhancing the speed of this chariot, the other wheels of the chariot i.e. the learned advocates, should also change gears and assist the courts more efficiently in order to enhance the speed of dispensation of justice in the courts.

86. I take this opportunity to request to all the learned counsel to cooperate in speedy dispensation of justice by decreasing the non- productive expenditure of the court's time. The learned counsel should decrease the number of adjournments sought and they should not object to the submissions being heard in their absence, more so when there is a learned counsel present to take notes of the submissions. The precious time of the court can also be better utilised if the learned counsel refrain from citing multiple case laws on a single point. The same old practices will continue to produce the same old results but as the society needs faster disposal of matters, all of us should change our practices to produce better results."

16. I once again request the learned members of the bar and remind them that besides being a representative of their client, they are also responsible officers of the Court. They should be considerate towards the other litigants also and should cooperate in expeditious dispensation of justice by being precise and concise while preparing pleadings as well as while making submissions before the Court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Preeti. PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Shikha Sinha, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.317 of 2024 under Sections 109, 324(4), 351(3), 103(1), 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the B.N.S.') registered at Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh.

3. The F.I.R. in the present case was lodged on 06.08.2024 at 23:26 hours against the applicant and his brother Vipin, stating that Harikesh Kumar Tiwari - elder brother of the informant's husband and his cousin Manoj Shukla, were going on a bullet motorcycle to Lalganj Tehsil in connection with a bail matter at 10:00 a.m. on 05.08.2024. As soon as they reached near Raipur petrol pump at about 10:30 a.m., the applicant came there driving a white Bolero, the registration number whereof is not known, and he hit the bullet motorcycle from the left side due to which Harikesh Tiwari got seriously injured and Manoj Kumar sitting on the pillion seat also suffered injuries. The Bolero ran away. The FIR states that for the past few days the accused persons were threatening to kill the victims because of some old animosity.

4. Harikesh Tiwari died during treatment and his postmortem examination was conducted on 19.08.2024. The postmortem examination report mentions a contusion of size 12 cm X 6 cm on right side of head above right ear, a contusion of size 6 cm X 4 cm on back of head, an abraded contusion of size 6 cm X 3 cm on top of right shoulder and an abraded contusion on medial aspect of right foot. The cause of death has been opined to be coma due to ante-mortem head injuries.

5. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that her husband is in jail in connection with some matter. There is a property dispute between family of the informant and the accused persons. Father-in-law of the informant and father of the accused persons are real brothers. The accused persons had entered into an altercation with Harikesh Tiwari at the time of sowing paddy and police had challaned Vipin Tiwari and Harikesh Tiwari (the deceased) and the deceased was going for bail in that matter on the date of the incident alongwith Manoj Kumar Shukla and Sunil Kumar Shukla. As soon as they had reached near Raipur petrol pump, a white Bolero of unknown registration number hit the bullet motorcycle of Harikesh Tiwari due to which they fell down and both of them suffered injuries. Harikesh Tiwari was taken to C.H.C., Lalganj from where he was sent to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh. He was then referred to Allahabad, but he was being treated in a private hospital at Lucknow. Manoj Shukla and Sunil Kumar Shukla had told that the Bolero was following them from Basantganj but as curtains were installed in it, the persons sitting in the vehicle could not be seen.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

7. A copy of FIR No.201 of 2021 has been annexed with the bail application which was lodged by the applicant against three persons-(i) Kamlesh Tiwari (husband of the present informant Meera Tiwari) (ii) Adarsh Tiwari S/o Kamlesh Tiwari and (iii) Devendra Tiwari father of Kamlesh Tiwari, stating that due to a dispute regarding plucking mangoes by the informant's niece aged 16 years, the accused persons had fired at her causing serious injuries to her. The informant's husband is in jail in connection with that case. However, the informant claims that the accused persons had entered into an altercation with Harikesh Tiwari at the time of sowing paddy and police had challaned the applicant and Harikesh Tiwari and the deceased was going for bail in that matter on the date of the incident.

8. During investigation it came to light that the third person sitting in Bolero was Sachin Mishra @ Adarsh Mishra and he has been granted bail by means of an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2963 of 2025. Other co-accused person,namely, Vipin Tiwari has also been granted bail by means of an order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.3971 of 2025

8. The learned AGA has stated that the case diary does not make a mention of any injury suffered by Manoj Kumar Shukla. The failure to record the findings of medico-legal examination report of Manoj Kumar Shukla prima facie indicates he had not suffered any injury.

9. The learned AGA has also submitted that it is recorded in the case diary that the Bolero Car and the Bullet Motorcycle were seen in the footage of CCTV several cameras. However, in none of the CCTV footages the registration number of the Bolero car or the persons sitting in it could be seen.

10. The learned A.G.A has pointed out that the investigation has been transferred to the Inspector (Crime) on 05.02.2025. He has further stated that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has already been submitted on 16.05.2024.

11. When we examine the facts of the case, it appears that the allegation in the present case is that a Bullet Motorcycle was hit by a Bolero car and as per the statement of the informant and the observations made by examination of numerous CCTV footages, neither the registration number of the Bolero nor its occupants could be seen. The informant claims that the accused persons killed the deceased and they tried to give it a semblance of an accident. Even as per the informant, the incident has a semblance of an accident. The applicant and the accused persons are descendants of the same ancestor and they are fighting for the same piece of land left by the applicant's grandfather. There appears to be no serious likelihood of the applicant fleeing from the process of law. It has been stated in the bail application that the informant's husband is accused of committing an offence under section 307 I.P.C. in which applicant's niece had suffered a gun-shot injury on her shoulder from and he is in jail in connection with that case. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the informant's family members also do not have clean antecedents.

12. Without making any observations which may affect the outcome of trial, I am of the view that the facts that the F.I.R. was lodged 37 hours after the incident; there is an old animosity between the parties; the registration number of the Bolero which had hit the motorcycle has not been identified even after examination of footages of numerous CCTV cameras; the applicant has not been connected with that Bolero vehicle and two co-accused persons have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Ambikesh Tiwari @ Ambikesh Kumar Tiwari be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

15. Before parting with the case, the Court is constrained to put on record that although this bail application could have been decided by a short order in a short period of time, the learned Counsel for the informant has made very elaborate submissions on several aspects of the matter. This Court had to point out that submissions advanced while opposing a bail application should not deal with the merits of the case and that there are 44 fresh matters and 200 listed matters to be dealt with by the Court and, therefore, he should be considerate towards the other litigants also but he persisted, although in an extremely respectful manner, that he is duty bound to advance submissions in the interest of his client. He is correct in a way, but at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that while deciding a bail application, the Court is not expected to hold a mini trial and this Court also tried to decide the bail application on brief consideration of the relevant points, without going into unnecessary details. However, when a Counsel persists and advances detailed submissions, the Court has to record the same and deal with the same, as not mentioning the submissions of a learned Counsel and not dealing with the same, would give rise to a genuine reason for grievance to the learned Counsel. This has resulted in various observations being made in the order, which could have been avoided but for the persistence of the learned Counsel for the informant. Therefore, as an abundant precaution, it is clarified that any observation made in this order will not affect the merits of the matter.

16. This long order has also resulted in spending more than reasonable time of the Court in deciding one bail application at the cost of several other matters, which loss cannot be made good. In Banwari Lal Kanchhal v. State of U.P.: 2023 SCC OnLine All 2510 this Court had observed that: - "85. It is often said that the Judges and the advocates are wheels of a chariot. For enhancing the speed of this chariot, the other wheels of the chariot i.e. the learned advocates, should also change gears and assist the courts more efficiently in order to enhance the speed of dispensation of justice in the courts.

86. I take this opportunity to request to all the learned counsel to cooperate in speedy dispensation of justice by decreasing the non- productive expenditure of the court's time. The learned counsel should decrease the number of adjournments sought and they should not object to the submissions being heard in their absence, more so when there is a learned counsel present to take notes of the submissions. The precious time of the court can also be better utilised if the learned counsel refrain from citing multiple case laws on a single point. The same old practices will continue to produce the same old results but as the society needs faster disposal of matters, all of us should change our practices to produce better results."

16. I once again request the learned members of the bar and remind them that besides being a representative of their client, they are also responsible officers of the Court. They should be considerate towards the other litigants also and should cooperate in expeditious dispensation of justice by being precise and concise while preparing pleadings as well as while making submissions before the Court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Preeti. PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench