Allahabad High Court
SATYAM TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Satyam Tiwari in a case under Sections 248(1), 238(1), 3(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the only allegation against him was participation in a conspiracy, with no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute the claim that the informant had fabricated the injury to implicate the accused. The court found that, prima facie, there was no evidence tying the applicant to the crime and no risk of tampering, intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions. The order also provided for bail cancellation if conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and only alleged to be part of a conspiracy.
- Whether the prosecution has sufficient corroborative evidence to justify denial of bail.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused, if released, would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- conspiracy
- lack of evidence
- arms act
- first information report
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34673 of 2026
Satyam Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mihsra, learned
Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0298 of 2026, under Sections 248(1),
238(1), 3(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-
Kaptanganj, District- Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. As per the allegations contained therein, the named
co-accused persons and an unknown person are alleged to have fired at the
informant's son, who sustained injury on his thigh. Further, the informant in
his second statement stated that in order to falsely implicate the named
accused persons, he had himself caused the said injury. It is next contended
that only the role of conspiracy has been assigned to the applicant. The
applicant was neither present at the place of occurrence nor has any concern
with the alleged incident. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 22.08.2026
having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The informant in his second statement stated that in order
to falsely implicate the named accused persons, he had himself caused the
BAIL No. 34673 of 2026
2
said injury. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for
more than a month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so
when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State
that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence
or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
6. Let the applicant Satyam Tiwari, involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 29, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…