Allahabad High Court
KAMATA PRASAD TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted as the case is not fit for bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kamata Prasad Tiwari, accused under Sections 103(1) and 352 of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 30 of the Arms Act. The applicant claimed innocence, citing that the star witness, the informant‑victim, had turned hostile and withdrawn her earlier statements, and argued that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the informant’s testimony was consistent during her initial examination and only became hostile after a four‑month gap, raising doubts about the applicant’s credibility. The Court noted that the FIR was prompt, the applicant was the sole accused, and the informant’s earlier statements remained supported, concluding that the case was not suitable for bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the Court directing that the trial proceed expeditiously in line with Supreme Court precedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the informant's inconsistent testimony.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence.
- Whether the prompt FIR and the fact that the applicant is the sole accused affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- witness hostility
- Arms Act
- Sections 103
- Section 352
- expeditious trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30914 of 2025
Kamata Prasad Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Singh Yadav, Kuldip Singh
Yadav, Rakesh Kumar Pal, Shashank
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jay Prakash Tripathi, Pramod
Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 74 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kuldip Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia,
learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 352 of BNS
and Sections 3/30 of Arms Act, Police Station- Sarai Aqil, District -
Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The star witness is the informant-victim, who has been examined during
trial as PW-1 and she has completely resiled from her earlier statements
and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring her
hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present
case. It is also stated that there is no other eye-witness to the incident.
5. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing
in jail since 22.03.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case,
the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
BAIL No. 30914 of 2025
2
shall cooperate with trial.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned State
Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground
that the examination-in-chief and partial cross-examination of the
informant were conducted on 09.08.2025, wherein her statement
remained consistent and intact. It is contended that her further cross-
examination was conducted after a delay of about four months, i.e., on
17.12.2025, during which she did not support her earlier version. It is
submitted that what transpired during the intervening period is yet to be
ascertained, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on
bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and taking into account the
fact that the FIR is prompt, the applicant is the sole accused named
therein, and that the statement of the informant stood supported during her
examination-in-chief and partial cross-examination, this Court does not
find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs.
State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union
of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 18, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…