Allahabad High Court
NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Narendra Kumar Tiwari, a Kanoongo, was arrested for allegedly demanding Rs.20,000 for land measurement, leading to a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has been in custody since July 18, 2026, and faces a maximum penalty of seven years, but has no prior criminal record. The primary issue before the court was whether bail should be granted, considering factors such as flight risk, potential witness intimidation, and the public interest. The State did not present any evidence indicating that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee if released. The court found no material to deny bail and emphasized the presumption of innocence and the non‑punitive nature of pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 considering the nature of the offence.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of flight, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering if released on bail.
- Whether the public interest opposes the grant of bail in this case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 7
- flight risk
- witness intimidation
- presumption of innocence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33035 of 2026
Narendra Kumar Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been
received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on
merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was
working on the post of Kanoongo and it is alleged that a sum of
Rs.20,000/- was demanded for measurement of land. Subsequently trap
team was constituted and a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been recovered. It is
submitted that charge sheet has been submitted on 10.9.2026 and
maximum punishment provided is seven years. The applicant has no
previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.7.2026
and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
will cooperate in the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not
dispute factual matrix of the case.
5. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to
indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would
disentitle the applicant for Bail.
6. It is not the case of the State that there is a possibility of interdicting
BAIL No. 33035 of 2026
2
fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been
shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at
large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that
applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the
evidence.
7. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the
detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there
is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned
A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that
the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at
large would intimidate the witness.
8. Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will
be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.
9. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for
any offence on previous occasion.
10. No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant
in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material
facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public
interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.
11. No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight
risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if
enlarged on bail.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant Narendra Kumar Tiwari involved in Case Crime
No. 0008 of 2026, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(Amended 2018), Police Station ACO, District Aligarh be released on bail
BAIL No. 33035 of 2026
3
on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following
conditions:-
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
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 applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant
shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 23, 2026
D. Tamang
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…