Ramswaroop Tiwari vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ramswaroop Tiwari vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, implicated in Case Crime No.145 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 85 B.N.S., Police Station Chhawani, District Basti, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling, the court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015 (3) SCC 220) and Hussain and Another v. Union of India ((2017) 5 SCC 702), if there is no legal impediment.obiter¶19
The observations made in the judgment are limited to the facts pertaining to disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Krishan Pahal, J.) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40380 of 2025, Ramswaroop Tiwari v. State of U.P. — Bail REJECTED. The applicant, arraigned in Case Crime No. 145 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 85 B.N.S., Police Station Chhawani, District Basti, sought enlargement on bail, urging false implication, material contradiction between the inquest report (no injury observed) and the postmortem report, delay of about three days in the FIR without explanation, absence of criminal history, custody since 18.6.2025, and readiness to cooperate with trial. Learned A.G.A. opposed, stressing that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, who expired within the precincts of the applicant's house, the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling. Weighing the death having occurred within the precincts of the applicant's house together with the cause of death, the judge found the application devoid of merits and rejected it. The trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, in view of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702. It was clarified that the observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits during trial.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40380 of 2025

Ramswaroop Tiwari

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narsingh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.145 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 85 B.N.S., Police Station Chhawani, District Basti with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. There is material contradiction in the inquest report to the postmortem report as no injury has been observed in the inquest report.

learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR itself is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person who had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling, as such,

BAIL No. 40380 of 2025

2

the applicant is not entitled for bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of applicant coupled with the fact that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

November 25, 2025

Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad