Prabhakar Tewari vs Vikram Singh and Malkhan Singh

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs Vikram Singh and Malkhan Singh, the Supreme Court of India upheld the bail order issued by the High Court. The appellant, Prabhakar Tewari, sought justice for his deceased father, Purushottam Dutt Tiwari. Vikram Singh, named in the First Information Report, was arrested based on evidence linking him to the crime scene. The court carefully examined the evidence and witness testimonies before affirming the bail order. This blog delves into the details of the case and the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision.


  • The appellant named five persons as direct assailants in his statement recorded on the date of occurrence.
  • Vikram Singh was named as the person responsible for the incident in the First Information Report.
  • In a statement recorded the next day, the appellant accused Vikram Singh of conspiring to commit the crime.
  • The High Court granted bail to Vikram Singh and Malkhan Singh in connection with the case initiated from the First Information Report filed on 7 February 2009.
  • The appellant, Prabhakar Tewari, is the son of the deceased victim, Purushottam Dutt Tiwari.
  • Vikram Singh was taken into custody on 19 March 2019.
  • The arrest was made based on evidence linking him to the crime scene.
  • During interrogation, Vikram Singh confessed to his involvement in the crime.
  • The court examined the evidence and witness testimonies before reaching a decision.

Also Read: Interpretation of Pre-deposit Requirement under SARFAESI Act


  • The accused Vikram Singh is involved in at least five other criminal cases under the same Police Station, Jagdishpur.
  • The witness statement of Narendra Dev Upadhyay was recorded after a span of 52 days from the date of the incident.
  • The applicant has no criminal history or previous convictions.
  • The applicant was not named as a participant in the assault in the F.I.R. or witness statements.
  • No recovery from the applicant has been shown to link him to the alleged crime.
  • Argument that the applicant will not flee judicial custody or tamper with witnesses if granted bail.
  • Prayer for bail opposed by the A.G.A. but could not dispute the facts presented by the applicant’s counsel.
  • Accused has been in custody for about seven months.
  • There are other criminal cases pending against the accused.
  • Accused’s counsel highlighted the delay in recording witness statements.

Also Read: Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. v. Actual Names: Electricity Restoration Order


  • In the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, a two Judge Bench of the Court declined to interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail to an accused.
  • The accused has multiple criminal cases pending against him and was named in the FIR on the date of occurrence itself.
  • Statements of individuals Rahul Tiwari and Narendra Dev Upadhyay under Section 161 of the 1973 Code also implicate the accused Vikram Singh.
  • In the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr, a coordinate Bench discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court in setting aside a bail order.
  • The High Court did not wrongfully exercise its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh.
  • Relevant materials were considered by the High Court in making the decision.
  • The bail order was not a result of non-application of mind or lack of evidence on record.
  • The severity of the alleged offence and the presence of other criminal cases against the accused do not alone justify refusal of bail.
  • Key factors for challenging the bail order are absence of court’s application of mind or lack of evidence in the record.
  • The order granting bail did not violate the factors outlined in the case of Mahipal (supra).
  • The appeal is related to the same FIR as another case.
  • Accused was granted bail based on the argument of false implication as presented by the counsel.
  • No ex-facie error shown in the order granting bail to Malkhan Singh.
  • No improper exercise of discretion by the High Court.
  • Consistent with previous appeal conclusion.

Also Read: Kottayam Bank vs. Insurance Company: Farmers’ Rights Upheld


  • Criminal Appeal No……../2020 dismissed.
  • Order of the High Court granting bail affirmed.
  • Sustained the order of the High Court.
  • Dismissed the appeal.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000152-000152 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *