PRABHAKAR TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 24,2020

PRABHAKAR TEWARI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAULANA MOHD AMIR RASHADI VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

LASU @ LAKHMAN MEHTALBHAI MOHANIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-156] [REFERRED TO]
TANSINGH S/O MANHER KUMOTI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUCKNOW VS. MD. NAWAZ KHAN [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
VASIM ALIAS SHAHIL S/O NIZAMUDDIN GORI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
KUM DEEPIKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN MAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-146] [REFERRED TO]
DAWOOD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. MAHESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNIBEN W/O ARVINDBHAI RUPABHAI CHUNARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-282] [REFERRED TO]
T.P. NANDAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
VIPUL KUMAR DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
IMRAN, S/O. ABDUL LATHIFF VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-86] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.)Leave granted in both the appeals.
(2.)These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the High Court on 11th September, 2019 granting bail to two accused persons, Vikram Singh@ Vikki (in SLP(Crl.) No.9207/2019) and Malkhan Singh (in SLP(Crl.) No.9209/2019) arraigned in a criminal case initiated on the basis of a First Information Report dated 7th February 2009. The said report was made by Prabhakar Tewari, being the appellant (in both the appeals) in Police Station Jagadishpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(3.)The appellant is the son of the deceased victim, Purushottam Dutt Tiwari. He was assaulted by gunshots on 7 th February, 2019 at about 4.00 p.m. while returning to his residence after attending the Court in connection with a case. In the first appeal (i.e. SLP(Crl.)No.9207 of 2019), the appellant assails the order granting bail to Vikram Singh @ Vikky by the High Court. In the statement of the appellant recorded in the evening on the date of occurrence at about 8.40 p.m., five persons have been named as direct assailants. Said Vikram Singh in the First Information Report has been named as the person by whom the "incident has been committed". In his statement recorded on the next day i.e. 8 th February, 2019, the appellant had named Vikram Singh as the person who had conspired to commit the said crime. Vikram Singh was taken into custody on 19th March 2019. The High Court, while granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh recorded the submission of his learned counsel as also that of the learned A.G.A., who had opposed the prayer for bail, in the following terms:-
"Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that statement of independent witness Narendra Dev Upadhyay was recorded after a span of 52 days and in his statement, he has categorically stated he has overheard the applicant planning for the alleged incident thereby indicating criminal conspiracy on the part of the applicant. There is no incriminating evidence against the applicant on record. It is also submitted that no recovery has been shown against the applicant. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2019. It has been pointed out that the applicant has criminal history which has been duly explained in the rejoinder affidavits. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.