The Allahabad High Court refused bail to accused in the high-profile murder case of Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari. Justice Krishan Pahal was hearing bail application filed by the accused, who has been in jail since October 2019.

The prosecution case stems from an FIR registered at Naka Hindola police station in Lucknow, alleging that two unidentified men entered Tiwari’s office on October 18, 2019, and attacked him with sharp-edged weapons before shooting him. He was declared dead upon arrival at the Trauma Centre. Investigation later revealed that the accused and co-accused, both residents of Gujarat, were involved in the killing, which reportedly followed a bounty announcement by two clerics after Kamlesh Tiwari made controversial remarks.

The defence argued that accused was not named in the original FIR and was implicated later based on inadmissible evidence, including CCTV footage lacking certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Counsel contended that key witnesses did not name accused in statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, and co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the High Court on parity grounds. The accused sought release citing nearly six years of incarceration, no prior criminal record, and violation of his Article 21 right to speedy trial.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution maintained that accused’s presence at the crime scene was confirmed through witness testimony and CCTV footage, and a .32 bore pistol was recovered from his possession. The State argued that his unexplained travel from Gujarat to Lucknow, coupled with the severity of the crime involving firearms and multiple stab wounds, justified denial of bail.

After considering the submissions, the Court held that the accused’s presence at the location was sufficiently established through both eyewitnesses and digital evidence. The Court emphasized that unexplained travel from a distant state was a material factor indicating possible involvement in the offence. It concluded that given the gravity of the crime and available evidence, the case was not fit for bail.

Accordingly, the bail plea was rejected. The Court, however, directed the trial court to expedite proceedings in line with Supreme Court precedents emphasizing timely disposal of criminal trials to safeguard the right to a speedy trial.

Appearances: 

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Srivastava, Mohd. Farooq

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Tewari, Pradeep Kumar Pandey