Allowed

Vandana Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022/4253/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench criminal miscellaneous bail application allowed. High Court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance, clarifying no view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with witnesses and ensure presence at trial proceedings.

Vandana Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4253 of 2022\ Applicant :- Vandana Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Hari Om Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Naveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh-I, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 363, 370, 323, 504 & 427 IPC, P.S.- Nawabganj, District - Gonda.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next added that applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that victim herself has stated that she had given her statement under Section 164 on the pressure of the police. He submits that victim herself has demolished the story of prosecution and there is no fate of trial and present applicant is incarceration for her no fault. He next added that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the present applicant so as to connect her in the instant matter and the statement of the complainant as well as victim supports the version of present applicant. In support of his contention he has drawn attention towards page 9 and 10 of the supplementary affidavit dated 18.08.2022. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 16 of the bail application that applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 07.10.2021. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C supports the version of FIR but he could not dispute the fact that victim drastically changed her statement and has demolished the story of prosecution; further there is no other criminal history against the applicant.

¶8

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie

¶9

satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Vandana Tiwari involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶11

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶12

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶13

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶14

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Ujjawal

¶18

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.11.16 18:47:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vandana Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Yadav @ Nirmal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinodanand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Princ Secy. Cikvil Sectt. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru the Secy. Home Lko.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Majeed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.