Kamlesh Tiwari Murder Case | Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Killer Arrested In October 2019

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal noted that the material on record, including eyewitness identification, CCTV footage and recovery of a .32 bore pistol from the accused, did not make the case fit for his release while trial is pending.

The single judge also observing that the applicant's presence at the scene was established and that he offered no plausible explanation for his being in Lucknow despite being a resident of Gujarat.

The FIR was registered against prime accused-applicant Ashfaq Hussain (39) on 18 October 2019 after deceased Tiwari was found in a pool of blood at his office. Medical records showed he was declared brought dead at the trauma centre. The post-mortem report also recorded one firearm injury and nine sharp-edge injuries.

Seeking bail in the case, the applicant's counsel argued before the HC that he was not named in the FIR and his name came up subsequently during investigation that too based on vague and non-admissible evidence.

His counsel also contended that in total 5 co-accused persons have been granted bail by the HC and hence, the applicant should also be granted the relief on the ground of parity.

Importantly, it was also submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since October 2019 and the trial is moving at a snail's space and there is no possibility of its early conclusion as the charge sheet mentions the number of witnesses to be examined as 73.

The prosecution, on the other hand, stated that it proposes to examine 33 witnesses of which 30 witnesses have only been examined.

The state counsel relied on witness statements and forensic material to link the applicant to the crime. The recovery of the pistol from the applicant's possession during investigation was also referred to.

It was also submitted that the applicant is a resident of Gujarat and there was no satisfactory explanation for his presence in Lucknow at the relevant time.

At the outset, the court noted that being a free country, any citizen of India can visit any place of his or her choice and may travel to visit relatives, friends, or places of tourist or religious significance, but in the present case, no explanation had been furnished by the accused-applicant regarding the purpose of his visit all the way from Gujarat to Lucknow.

"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 bench further remarked as it denied him bail.

However, before parting, the Court directed the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously.

It may be noted that Kamlesh Tiwari was murdered in Lucknow in October 2019 with stabs and a gunshot.

According to the Uttar Pradesh Police, in 2016, two main suspects, Mohammad Mufti Naeem Kazmi and Imam Maulana Anwarul Haq, allegedly issued an order (Ferman) promising a significant sum of money - Rs. 51 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 crores respectively - to anyone who would cause the death of Tiwari who purportedly made derogatory remarks about the Prophet.

According to a detailed investigation, not only two assailants were identified, but a large conspiracy was also detected, and finally, a charge sheet was filed against 13 accused persons, including the applicant. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased sustained multiple stab wounds, including a slit throat, as well as a firearm injury.

In 2021, the Supreme Court had transferred the trial of the case from Lucknow to Prayagraj.

Apperances

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

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