Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Kamlesh Tiwari Murder Case Arrested In 2019

The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to Ashfak Husain, one of the two accused in the murder case of Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari.

The Court was considering an Application seeking bail in case registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201, 409, 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4/25 Arms Act and Section 9 of the Information Technology Act.

The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal held, "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has been identified by two witnesses, namely P.W.2-Saurashtra Jeet Singh and P.W.7-Rishi Tiwari, and that his presence is also established through CCTV footage, as well as the fact that he is a resident of the State of Gujarat and had no ostensible business in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, and that no explanation has been given regarding his presence at the place of occurrence, coupled with the recovery of a .32 bore pistol from his possession, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Atul Srivastava, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case and has nothing to do with the said offence. It was submitted that the Applicant is not named in the FIR and his name only came up subsequently during the investigation, that too based on vague and non-admissible evidence. The Counsel contended that the delay in the postmortem examination has not been explained, even though the place of occurrence was only about 1 km away from the Police Station.

It was argued that the entire prosecution story is doubtful and is based on conjectures and fallacious evidence and Applicant has been implicated with an ulterior motive. It was further argued that the Applicant has been languishing in jail for six years and his fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stand violated.

The Counsel contended that the Applicant has been identified by the informant in the CCTV footage, which is against the settled law of the land. It was further submitted that there is no certificate on record as per the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, thus, the said CCTV footage is not admissible in evidence, and there is no other cogent evidence against the Applicant, and hence he is entitled to bail. 

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the Trial is at its conclusive end as of the 33 proposed witnesses, already 30 witnesses have been examined.

It stated that no explanation has been furnished on behalf of the applicant regarding the purpose of his visit, all the way from Gujarat to Lucknow.

The Application was accordingly rejected.

Cause Title: Ashfak Husain v. State of U.P.

Click here to read/ download Order