Tinku vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72596

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11859 of 2025

Applicant :- Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad Tiwari,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

In the first information report there is allegation against the applicant that he had friendship with the daughter of the informant. He informed this fact to his friends, Arun and Ravindra. The son of the informant got annoyed with all the accused. Thereafter matter was settled in panchayat and all the three accused pleaded forgiveness. On the same night the daughter of the informant (deceased) committed suicide by hanging herself to death.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no allegation of abetting the deceased to suicide. The deceased committed suicide for the reasons best known to her. Applicant alleges false implication in this case. Other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. Applicant is in jail since 28.02.2025 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Tinku, involved in Case Crime No.216 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C, Police Station Sector Anupshahr, District- Bulandshahr be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 SS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SURENDER SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku v. State of U.P.

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

Kuldeep Singh vs State of U.P.

Anubhav Mittal vs State of U.P.

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Furkan vs State of U.P. and Another

Sofiya Kamei vs State of U.P.

Boby @ Shivmangal vs State of U.P.