Allahabad HC Grants Bail Citing Accused’s Alibi And Right To Documents | State’s Endeavor Is To Ensure Justice Not Mere Conviction
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi granted bail in a criminal case involving serious allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail, observing that the fundamental right to personal liberty should not be curtailed without following due process. The Court held that the statutory mandate under Section 230 of the BNS entitles the accused to receive relevant documents and materials during investigation and trial. It further recorded that the denial of such rights would be a violation of natural justice principles. While allowing the bail application, the Court stated that observations made in the order would not prejudice the trial proceedings.
The instant bail application was filed by the applicant seeking release in Case Crime No. 317 of 2024 registered under Sections 109(1), 324(4), 351(3), 103(1), and 61(2) of the BNS at Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. The co-accused Sachin Mishra @ Adarsh Mishra had previously been granted bail by the High Court on 09.04.2025, and the applicant sought parity in relief.
Sri Bhuwan Raj, the learned Counsel for the informant, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application, contending that parts of the case diary were annexed with the bail application despite the investigation being incomplete. He argued that such access indicated the applicant’s ability to influence the investigation. The objection was based on Section 192 of the BNSS, which restricts access to case diaries by accused persons.
The Court examined Sections 192 and 230 of the BNSS and noted that Section 230 mandates that upon the accused's appearance, the Magistrate must furnish copies of the police report and relevant documents. The Court observed that this provision aligns with the principles of natural justice.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant was the primary accused in a case involving a deliberate act of violence leading to the death of Harikesh Kumar Tiwari. It was alleged that on 05.08.2024, the applicant intentionally hit the deceased’s bullet motorcycle with a Bolero vehicle due to a longstanding property dispute. The FIR was lodged on 06.08.2024 at 23:26 hours, approximately 37 hours after the incident.
During investigation, the postmortem examination of the deceased revealed multiple head injuries, and the cause of death was opined to be coma due to ante-mortem head injuries. Statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS indicated a property dispute between the families of the applicant and the informant.
The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the date and time of the incident, the applicant was present at the premises of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow. His photograph taken at the photo affidavit centre at 11:20 a.m. on the date of the incident was annexed as evidence. Call detail records also corroborated the applicant’s presence in Lucknow during the time of the alleged incident, which occurred around 10:30 a.m. in District Pratapgarh, approximately 175 kilometers away.
The Investigating Officer recorded that CCTV footage did not capture the registration number of the Bolero vehicle or identify its occupants. The applicant’s mobile phone records indicated he was present at the High Court premises between 10:06 a.m. and 10:40 a.m. on the date of the incident. The learned AGA-I also admitted that no medical examination report of the other injured person was recorded in the case diary.
The learned Counsel for the informant cited Supreme Court judgments in Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and Sushil Singh v. State of U.P. to oppose the bail. However, the Court distinguished the facts of these cases, noting that the current case did not involve similar circumstances.
It was further submitted that the informant’s family members also had pending criminal cases, and the applicant had previously been granted bail in another case under Section 307 IPC.
The Court observed that "although Section 192 BNSS provides that the accused or his agent shall not be entitled to call for the case diary or to see the same, Section 230 BNSS mandates the Magistrate to furnish the accused with copies of the police report and other relevant documents.” It recorded that the provisions of Section 230 BNSS are in consonance with the principles of natural justice and should prevail in case of conflict.
The Court stated that "it is a basic principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing, which would include providing him copies of the material against him." It further recorded that being made to languish in jail without access to relevant materials adversely affects the fundamental right to personal liberty.
On the issue of the informant’s preliminary objection, the Court stated that "annexing copies of extracts of case diary has become a norm and not annexing the same is an exception." It noted that a person in custody cannot be blamed for the case diary extracts procured by others, and this cannot be a ground for rejecting bail in limine.
The Court also recorded that "failure to recover the offending vehicle based on a mere description without any identifiable particulars does not prima facie appear to be deliberate." Regarding the allegations of influencing the investigation, the Court observed that "the State's endeavour is to ensure justice and not to ensure conviction of all the accused persons."
The Court took note of the applicant’s presence at the High Court premises at the time of the incident and stated that "the applicant’s location in the campus of this High Court is established from his call detail records and his photograph taken in the photo affidavit centre of this Court."
The Court concluded that "without making any observations which may affect the outcome of trial, I am of the view that the facts that the FIR was lodged 37 hours after the incident; there is an old animosity between the parties; the registration number of the Bolero has not been identified; and the applicant has not been connected with the Bolero vehicle prima facie establish grounds for granting bail."
The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or Court concerned.
It recorded the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.
Before concluding, the Court expressed concern over the time spent in hearing the bail application and noted that "although this bail application could have been decided by a short order in a short period of time, the learned Counsel for the informant has made very elaborate submissions." The Court clarified that "any observation made in this order will not affect the merits of the matter."
Finally, the Court reiterated the need for advocates to cooperate with the judicial system to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases. It recorded that "besides being a representative of their client, they are also responsible officers of the Court."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Applicant: Shri Ajai Kumar Shukla, Advocate; Smt. Nisha Devi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A.-I; Shri Bhuwan Raj, Advocate
Case Title: Vipin Tiwari vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:27009
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3971 of 2025
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
[Read/Download order]
