The Supreme Court today granted bail to a man, accused as a conspirator behind the murder of Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari in 2019.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the accused has already been incarcerated for over 4.5 years. Besides, the bench also took into account the allegations imputed against the appellant-accused. This involved staying in touch with the main accused and providing him with legal aid. Furthermore, the Court underlined that he had no criminal antecedents and the UP Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Act was not invoked against him.
Considering the aforesaid, the Court granted him bail while also setting aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court that denied him bail this April. The Supreme Court in 2021 had transferred the trial of the case from Lucknow to Prayagraj.
Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari was murdered in Lucknow in October 2019 with stabs and a gunshot. The Uttar Pradesh Polic in 2016 stated that 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.
The detailed investigation stated that 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. The post-mortem report stated the deceased sustained multiple stab wounds, including a slit throat, as well as a firearm injury.
Earlier, the Single judge bench of the High Court had denied him bail, mentioning that it was a case of extreme communal hatred wherein the deceased (Tiwari) was eliminated by way of a brutal daylight murder.
The Court in its order has noted that there is substantial evidence that the applicant-accused was involved in crime and was part of a larger conspiracy and a specific role was assigned to him to give legal assistance to the main assailants if they got arrested.
The court further noted that electronic evidence shows that the applicant had called multiple times to the main assailants soon before the occurrence. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime as well as the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, the Court denied bail to the present appellant.