Sita Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3561

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29 of 2025

Applicant :- Sita Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akber Ahmad,Maria Fatima

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Akbar Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 9.6.2024 in case Crime No. 129 of 2024 u/s 302/34 IPC, P.S. Jethwara, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶8

Learned AGA as well as Sri Akbar Ahmad have filed counter affidavit, same is taken on record.

¶9

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the general allegation of assault and beating has been levelled against five accused persons including the present applicant. The present applicant is wife of accused no. 1, Chandra Mani Tiwari. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the informant as well as of one Mohd. Asad & Salman. While recording his statement the informant Md. Asad has repeated the same story as has been indicated in the F.I.R. As per the F.I.R. and statement of Mohd. Asad all five persons were involved in committing murder of Mohd. Farooq. The statement of Salman has also been recorded who told that he had not seen the incident in question but to the best of his information co-accused Devi Prasad Pandey has been falsely implicated as he was not present at the place. He has also told that there was no enmity of the deceased with the main accused Chandra

¶10

Mani Tiwari but there was some monetary transaction between them, therefore, the incident in question took place.

¶11

Sri Ahmad has drawn attention of this Court towards his counter affidavit showing the confessional statement of the main accused Chandra Mani Tiwari, who had stated that the role of his wife was of catching hold and he assaulted on Mohd.Farooq. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards independent witnesses namely Kanchan and Antima Pandey, Annexure no. 7 of the bail application wherein the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and her husband. Those two ladies have stated that the other co-accused were not present.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if the statement of the independent witnesses namely, Antima Pandey and Kanchan is taken on its face value then it is clear that this is a case of false implication, so far as the other co-accused are concerned, even Salman who is related to the deceased has also stated that co-accused Devi Prasad Pandey has also been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that as a matter of fact none has seen the incident in question, therefore, the prosecution story is varying from the statements of the persons. The extra-judicial confession of the husband of the applicant would not be sufficient to implicate the applicant and even if his statement is taken on its face value, her role has been attributed as of catching hold. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. She being a lady may be given the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C. ( section 480 B.N.S.). The charge-sheet has been filed in this case.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for

¶15

bail. Sri Ahmad has stated that though the statement of witnesses are not consistent but one thing is consistent that the present applicant was very much present at the place in question and she actively aided and supported her husband in killing the deceased.

¶16

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that general allegation of assault and beating has been levelled against five accused persons including the present applicant, the present applicant is wife of accused no. 1 Chandra Mani Tiwari, while recording his statement the informant Md. Asad has repeated the same story as has been indicated in the F.I.R. and as per the F.I.R. and statement of Mohd. Asad all five persons were involved in committing murder of Mohd. Farooq, he also told that he had not seen the incident in question but to the best of his information co-accused Devi Prasad Pandey has been falsely implicated as he was not present at the place, he has also told that there was no enmity of the deceased with the main accused Chandra Mani Tiwari, the witnesses namely, Kanchan and Antima Pandey have stated that the other co-accused were not present, if the statement of the independent witnesses Antima Pandey and Kanchan is taken on its face value then it is clear that this is a case of false implication, so far as the other coaccused are concerned, even Salman, who is related to the deceased has also stated that co-accused Devi Prasad Pandey has also been falsely implicated, none has seen the incident in question, the prosecution story is varying from the statements of the persons, the extrajudicial confession of the husband of the applicant would not be sufficient to implicate the applicant and even if his statement is statement is taken on its face value, her role has been attributed as of catching hold, applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, the applicant being a lady may be given the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C. ( section 480 B.N.S.), charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that she shall not misuse the liberty

¶17

of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶18

Bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Sita Tiwari , involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) 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. 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.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iv) 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 her in accordance with law.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶25

Before parting with it is made clear that this bail application has been granted to the present applicant considering the fact that she is a lady and entitled to benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C. (section 480 B.N.S.), therefore, other co-accused may not seek parity with the present applicant.

¶26

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 20.1.2025/Om

¶28

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harishyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Asim Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Sunil Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Akram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saddiq Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.