Jaihind @ Jayendra Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Saket Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Jaihind @ Jayendra Tiwari, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.89 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Binwar, District- Hamirpur.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the deceased/Smt. Shivani the daughter of the informant was solemnized with Rakesh Tiwari @ Ramji the son of the applicant on 10.12.2024. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail, para-25 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is argued that inquest was conducted on the information sent by CHC to the police in which Smt. Rajni the mother-in-law, Jaihind/fatherin-law the applicant along with Devdatt Mishra (father of the deceased) and Shivam (brother of the deceased) and Umakant Mishra (tau of the deceased) were the witnesses and at that time no complaint whatsoever

¶12

BAIL No. 40702 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

has been made by the informant or her family members, but later on the present F.I.R. has been lodged after 4 days of the incident. It is argued that the cause of death as opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and except single ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on her body. It is argued that the applicant has been made accused in the present case because of he being a family member of the husband of the deceased. It is further argued that co-accused Rajni @ Rajnish Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35929 of 2025 (Rajni @ Rajnish Devi Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 23.6.2025.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Rajni @ Rajnish Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail.

¶16

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. Inquest was conducted on the information sent by CHC to the police in which father, brother and tau of the deceased were the witnesses but at that time no complaint whatsoever has been made by them. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and except single ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on her body. Co-accused Rajni @ Rajnish Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail.

¶17

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant- Jaihind @ Jayendra Tiwari , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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

¶19

BAIL No. 40702 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

justice:-

¶22

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶25

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails 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 209 BNS, 2023.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶27

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶28

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

¶29

BAIL No. 40702 of 2025

¶30

4

¶31

applicant to prison. 10. The bail application is allowed . 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶33

November 26, 2025 M. ARIF

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaihind @ Jayendra Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaihind @ Jayendra Tiwari 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

Similar cases

Smt Sonali Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Murari @ Aditya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash Sharma vs State of U.P.

Gautam Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas vs State of U.P. and 3 Others