Allahabad High Court
SHIVA TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court denied bail to the applicant.
Summary
Shiva Tyagi was charged under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of a deceased, with the firearm recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After a first bail application was rejected, a second bail application was filed, contending that key witnesses had been declared hostile, the charge‑sheet was already filed and the applicant had no criminal record. The State opposed bail, noting that three crucial witnesses who had seen the applicant quarrelling with the deceased had not yet been examined and that the ballistic report on the recovered weapon was still pending. The Court held that, in view of the unexamined witnesses and the pending forensic report, there was no sufficient ground to grant bail and therefore rejected the application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and the FSL to complete the ballistic report within a month.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite hostile witnesses and the filing of the charge‑sheet.
- Whether the non‑examination of key eyewitnesses and the pending ballistic report justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- hostile witness
- Arms Act
- murder
- ballistic report
- speedy trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33834 of 2026
Shiva Tyagi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. This is a second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant with a
prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2026,
under Section 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police
Station Hastinapur, District Meerut, during the pendency of the trial. The
first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 15252 of 2026 was rejected on 06.05.2026.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the first
informant as well as two witnesses, namely, Naveen and Subhash, have
also been declared hostile before the trial court. Therefore, the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has
no criminal history. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement for custodial
interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and has been
languishing in jail since 05.03.2026. In case he is granted bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that the presence of the applicant and his quarrelling with
the deceased just before the incident were duly proved from the
statements of Nipun Tyagi, Aryan Tyagi and Shanu Chaudhary, but they
BAIL No. 33834 of 2026
2
have not been examined till date before the trial court. It is further
submitted that the applicant himself came to the police station and
surrendered and also handed over the firearm used in committing the
murder of the deceased, which has been sent to the FSL, and the ballistic
report is yet to be received. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the
fact that the three witnesses, namely, Nipun Tyagi, Aryan Tyagi and
Shanu Chaudhary, are yet to be examined before the trial court, who had
last seen the applicant with the deceased and had witnessed them
quarrelling with each other, and no other ground has been made out or
raised by learned counsel for the applicant for releasing the applicant on
bail, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is
hereby rejected. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude
the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Liakat Ali v. State
of Jammu and Kashmir, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 99 of 2026, decided
on 16.07.2026.
7. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
8. It is further directed that the concerned In-Charge, FSL, shall prepare
the ballistic report regarding the weapon recovered from the applicant
within a period of one month, and the same shall be submitted before the
trial court.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 23, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…