Tavishi Singh @ Tannu @ Tanishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37554

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 470 of 2025

Applicant :- Tavishi Singh @ Tannu @ Tanishi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Shukla,Saumya Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.146 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 313, 504, 506 of IPC and 3 & 4 DP Act, 1961, P.S. Godamba, District Lucknow.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 has passed the following order:-

¶11

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.

¶12

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

¶13

3. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 146 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 313, 504, 506 of IPC and 3 & 4 DP Act, 1961, P.S. Godamba, District Lucknow.

¶14

4. As per contents of FIR, the informant was married to Ravendra Singh, father of applicant on 15.11.2023. Allegation levelled is that the said Ravendra Singh alongwith his two daughters including applicant thereafter were instrumental in harassment of the informant on account of dowry. It is also alleged that the informant's husband and other daughter Niti attacked the informant on 12.03.2024 inflicting serious injuries

¶15

upon her.

¶16

5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled her which would be evident from the fact that there is no allegation levelled against applicant with regard to having attacked or caused any injuries to the informant on 12.03.2024. It is submitted that only general allegations have been levelled against her. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶17

6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail application with the submission that a bare perusal of FIR will clearly indicate complicity of applicant in allegations levelled against her. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶18

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that only general allegations of causing harassment to the informant have been levelled against her without any specific role being indicated in the alleged attacked upon informant. The applicant admittedly does not have any previous criminal history.

¶19

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Tavishi Singh @ Tannu @ Tanishi shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶21

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶22

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶23

(iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶24

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶25

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶26

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶27

9. List this case on 25.05.2025, as fresh alongwith service report.

¶28

10. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

¶29

Learned A.G.A. submits that investigation is still going on. He has further submitted that applicant has cooperated in the investigation nd his statement has been recorded byt he Investigating Officer after he was granted interim bail thus, considering the fact that applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court and investiation is going on.

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he will cooperate in the investigation.

¶31

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no previous criminal antecedents, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation as also the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶32

The application stands allowed.

¶33

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tavishi Singh @ Tannu @ Tanishi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tavishi Singh @ Tannu @ Tanishi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pappu @ Pappu Shankar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bablu @ Basant Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shah Alam Alias Dhoni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

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

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Aafak Ahamad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another