Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajan Tiwari v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 14501 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11974 (21 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 54


Ranjan Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Singh Advocate for the complainant  and learned A.G.A. for the State.

According to the first information report, all the accused including the present applicant have been assigned the role of firing by their respective fire arms. The present applicant is said to be armed with Gun. The first informant has specifically mentioned that Pradeep Tiwari and Dhruv Yadav were firing from their rifles. The post mortem report shows that the deceased had received three injuries. Injury no. 1 is peniterating wound, injury no. 2 is wound of exit, so far injury no. 3 is concerned, it was found on the right wrist. The co-accused Dhruv Yadav was allowed by by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21063 of 2000 on 20.12.2000 and Pradeep Tiwari in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12591 of 2006 on 28.6.2006. Learned counsel for the applicant has annexed both the bail orders and submits that the case of the present applicant is identical to the other co-accused, who have already been released on bail, therefore, the applicant is entitled for the same relief on the ground of parity.

Counsel for the first informant has emphatically disputed the argument of the counsel for the applicant and placed before me an order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6521 of 2006 of Pramod Tiwari, whereby his bail application has been rejected.

I have perused the order in the case of Pramod Tiwari. The main consideration is that after submission of the charge sheet, the accused did not appear before the court for considerable period of time, therefore, there are likelihood of his absconding.

I have considered the argument of the counsel for the respective parties. Since the accused specifically alleged to have fired from the rifle in the first information report, has been granted bail, the bail application of the present applicant is allowed on the ground of parity.

Let the applicant Ranjan Tiwari be released on bail in Case Crime No. 18 of 2000 (Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2001), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 308 I.P.C., and Section 27 Arms Act, Police Station Barwapatti, District Kushinagar subject to his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, besides that the applicant shall also give an undertaking before the court concerned that he will not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses after he is released on bail. He shall not absent himself on the dates fixed in the Session Trial. The court shall decide the case expeditiously keeping in view the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. in this connection. It will be open to the trial court to proceed appropriately in case there is any lapse on the part of the applicant.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.