Awadhesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 876 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 654 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Beniganj, District- Hardoi.

3. Impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 14.03.2022, learned counsel for the appellant stated that as per the FIR i.e. FIR No. 0654/2021, lodged by the opposite party No. 2/Anoop Kumar Raidas making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at P.S.- Beniganj, District- Hardoi, four accused namely Awadhesh Tiwari(appellant), Girish Tewari, Arun Yadav and Kaamta Yadav & one unknown armed countrymade pistols opened deceased, informant/Anoop Kumar Raidas and Prem Kumar and all of them sustained injuries in the incident.

4. It is further stated that in fact the informant was not present at the situs of crime for the reason that there is no injury report with regard to the same and if some injury i.e. gunshot injury was sustained then he ought to 2 CRLA No. 2631 of 2023 have been medically examined.

5. It is further stated that specific role in the FIR has not been assigned to any of the accused named and in the same tune, the informant/Anoop Kumar Raidas, alleged injured eye-witness, narrated the story before the trial court as PW-1. The statement of Anoop Kumar Raidas (PW-1) would indicate that co-accused Kaamta Yadav and Arun Yadav committed crime and these accused have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.08.2023 and 10.08.2023, respectively, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 873 of 2022 and 859 of 2022. It is also stated that another co-accused namely Girish has also been released on bail in compliance of order of this Court dated 21.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 863 of 2022.

6. It is also stated that actual injured witness namely Prem Kumar, who has already been examined before the trial court as PW-3, has been declared hostile. In regard to this witness, it has been stated by Ms. Ambica Tripathi, learned counsel for the private opposite parties that in examination-in-chief, he supported the story of prosecution, but she could not dispute that subsequently, he was declared hostile by the trial court.

7. In regard to aforesaid, it is to be noted that the statement of hostile witness could be considered by the trial court and at this stage of the bail, based upon the same, any observation on this aspect of the case would prejudice the case before the trial court.

8. In continuation, it has also been stated that as both the main witnesses namely Anoop Kumar Raidas (PW-1) and Prem Kumar (PW-3) have already been examined before the trial court and now there is no possibility of influencing the main witnesses of the fact before the trial court, as other witnesses are formal witnesses.

9. He further submitted that taking note of the aforesaid particularly the fact that injured witness Prem Kumar has already been declared hostile, the appellant, who is in jail since 23.11.2021, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 3 CRLA No. 2631 of 2023

10. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the private opposite parties vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned counsel for the side opposite, and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statements of main witnesses of fact, who have already been declared hostile.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances and also considering the statements of main witnesses of fact, period of incarceration of the appellant, i.e., about three years and eleven months, the fact that two co-accused have been already been enlarged on bail by this Court as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

13. Order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 876 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 654 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Beniganj, District- Hardoi is hereby set-aside.

14. Let the appellant- Awadhesh Tiwari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 4 CRLA No. 2631 of 2023 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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. November 6, 2025 Anurag (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 876 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 654 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Beniganj, District- Hardoi.

3. Impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 14.03.2022, learned counsel for the appellant stated that as per the FIR i.e. FIR No. 0654/2021, lodged by the opposite party No. 2/Anoop Kumar Raidas making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at P.S.- Beniganj, District- Hardoi, four accused namely Awadhesh Tiwari(appellant), Girish Tewari, Arun Yadav and Kaamta Yadav & one unknown armed countrymade pistols opened deceased, informant/Anoop Kumar Raidas and Prem Kumar and all of them sustained injuries in the incident.

4. It is further stated that in fact the informant was not present at the situs of crime for the reason that there is no injury report with regard to the same and if some injury i.e. gunshot injury was sustained then he ought to 2 CRLA No. 2631 of 2023 have been medically examined.

5. It is further stated that specific role in the FIR has not been assigned to any of the accused named and in the same tune, the informant/Anoop Kumar Raidas, alleged injured eye-witness, narrated the story before the trial court as PW-1. The statement of Anoop Kumar Raidas (PW-1) would indicate that co-accused Kaamta Yadav and Arun Yadav committed crime and these accused have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.08.2023 and 10.08.2023, respectively, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 873 of 2022 and 859 of 2022. It is also stated that another co-accused namely Girish has also been released on bail in compliance of order of this Court dated 21.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 863 of 2022.

6. It is also stated that actual injured witness namely Prem Kumar, who has already been examined before the trial court as PW-3, has been declared hostile. In regard to this witness, it has been stated by Ms. Ambica Tripathi, learned counsel for the private opposite parties that in examination-in-chief, he supported the story of prosecution, but she could not dispute that subsequently, he was declared hostile by the trial court.

7. In regard to aforesaid, it is to be noted that the statement of hostile witness could be considered by the trial court and at this stage of the bail, based upon the same, any observation on this aspect of the case would prejudice the case before the trial court.

8. In continuation, it has also been stated that as both the main witnesses namely Anoop Kumar Raidas (PW-1) and Prem Kumar (PW-3) have already been examined before the trial court and now there is no possibility of influencing the main witnesses of the fact before the trial court, as other witnesses are formal witnesses.

9. He further submitted that taking note of the aforesaid particularly the fact that injured witness Prem Kumar has already been declared hostile, the appellant, who is in jail since 23.11.2021, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 3 CRLA No. 2631 of 2023

10. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the private opposite parties vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned counsel for the side opposite, and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statements of main witnesses of fact, who have already been declared hostile.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances and also considering the statements of main witnesses of fact, period of incarceration of the appellant, i.e., about three years and eleven months, the fact that two co-accused have been already been enlarged on bail by this Court as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

13. Order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 876 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 654 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Beniganj, District- Hardoi is hereby set-aside.

14. Let the appellant- Awadhesh Tiwari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 4 CRLA No. 2631 of 2023 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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. November 6, 2025 Anurag (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench