In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to one Vipin Tiwari accused under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in Case Crime No. 317 of 2024, while delivering sharp observations on courtroom decorum and efficient use of judicial time. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, in a 49-paragraph order dated May 8, 2025, highlighted the need for brevity in bail proceedings and called upon members of the bar to cooperate in expeditious delivery of justice.
Case Background
The case stemmed from an FIR registered on August 6, 2024, alleging that the applicant intentionally hit the deceased’s motorcycle with a Bolero SUV in Pratapgarh, resulting in serious head injuries and death. The motive was allegedly an old property dispute between family members. The informant claimed prior threats from the accused and identified the vehicle only as a white Bolero with curtains, with no registration number.
Vipin Tiwari, through his counsel, cited alibi based on his presence at the High Court in Lucknow (175 km away) on the day and time of the alleged incident. His mobile phone location and a photograph taken at the High Court’s photo affidavit center supported this claim. He also cited parity, referring to co-accused Sachin Mishra being granted bail earlier.
Court’s Findings
Justice Vidyarthi found that:
There was a delay of 37 hours in lodging the FIR. CCTV footage did not reveal the vehicle’s registration number or occupants. The mobile phone location of the applicant confirmed his presence in Lucknow during the time of the incident. The postmortem indicated injuries consistent with a vehicular accident, but intent to murder was only alleged, not conclusively established.
Taking these factors into account, and observing that another co-accused had already been granted bail, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the same relief.
Judicial Concern: “Not a Mini Trial”
The most notable part of the judgment appears in paragraphs 47 to 49, where Justice Vidyarthi expressed his dismay at the inordinate time consumed due to the extensive oral submissions made by the informant’s counsel during what was expected to be a routine bail hearing.
“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… While deciding a bail application, the Court is not expected to hold a mini trial.” — Para 47
Justice Vidyarthi acknowledged the counsel’s respectful persistence in defending his client’s case but reminded him of the responsibility to be mindful of other litigants waiting for their matters to be heard. The judge noted that as many as 44 fresh and 200 listed matters were scheduled for the day.
“This long order has also resulted in spending more than reasonable time of the Court in deciding one bail application at the cost of several other matters, which loss cannot be made good.” — Para 48
Citing Banwari Lal Kanchhal v. State of U.P., the Court stressed the shared responsibility of both judges and lawyers in ensuring judicial efficiency. Advocates, the Court said, must reduce unnecessary adjournments, avoid repetitious citations, and be concise.
“I once again request the learned members of the bar… to be precise and concise while preparing pleadings as well as while making submissions before the Court.” — Para 49
Case Title: Vipin Tiwari v. State of U.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:27009
Date of Order: May 8, 2025
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
