Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to Kamlesh Tiwari Murder Accused

Hussain had approached the court seeking bail in the case registered at Naka Hindola police station, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201, 409, and 420 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Arms Act and IT Act. The prosecution had alleged that Hussain and his co-accused, Moinuddin Ahmed, had murdered Kamlesh Tiwari in cold blood inside his office on October 18, 2019.

According to the prosecution’s version, Tiwari was attacked around 12:30 PM that day by two men who had entered his office posing as visitors. The FIR, lodged by Tiwari’s wife at 7:43 PM, stated that she found her husband lying in a pool of blood after hearing no sound for several minutes. The postmortem examination revealed one firearm wound and nine sharp weapon injuries. The police later recovered a .32 bore pistol from Hussain and a knife from co-accused Moinuddin, allegedly used in the attack.

Hussain’s counsel, Advocate Mohd. Farooq, argued that Hussain was being falsely implicated. He stressed that Hussain’s name was not mentioned in the FIR and surfaced later during investigation based on what he called vague and inadmissible evidence. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the prosecution’s story, including an unexplained seven-hour delay in lodging the FIR despite the police station being just one kilometre from the crime scene.

The counsel further contended that the CCTV footage identifying Hussain was not admissible in evidence, as it lacked certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He also argued that the identification of Hussain through CCTV by witnesses was contrary to established legal procedure under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Hussain, it was submitted, had no criminal antecedents and had already spent nearly six years in custody while the trial was still pending.

The prosecution, however, maintained that Hussain and his accomplice had executed a meticulously planned murder motivated by past hate speech controversies linked to Tiwari. Citing witness testimonies of PW-2 Saurashtra Jeet Singh and PW-7 Rishi Tiwari, the state submitted that Hussain had been clearly identified as one of the two assailants seen in the CCTV footage entering the office. The recovery of the weapon and forensic evidence, prosecutors argued, directly connected him to the offence.

Rejecting the bail plea, court observed that while individuals are free to travel anywhere in India, Hussain had failed to offer any plausible explanation for travelling over 1,000 kilometres from Gujarat to Lucknow at the time of the murder.

"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," Justice Pahal concluded.

Court also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings in line with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) and Hussain v. Union of India (2017).

Case Title: Ashfak Husain vs State of UP

Order Date: October 14, 2025

Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal