Vedika Pandey Alias Rangoli Alias Vedika Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS has been filed by the accused-applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 0082 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 108 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 147, 306 IPC), Police Station Sareni, District Raebareli.

¶13

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 20.04.2025 has been lodged under Sections 191(2) & 103(1) of B.N.S. (corresponding to Section 147, 302 IPC), 2023 against five named accused persons including the present applicant and one Journalist alleging therein that on 19.04.2025 at around 03.45 PM, the husband of the informant was killed by Rajendra Tiwari, his daughter Vedika Pandey Alias Rangoli Alias Vedika Tiwari (the present applicant) and Bachcha Vajpai. Aditya Mishra and some other reporters of The Sach India newspaper circulated certain news due to which the incident had occurred.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the father of the applicant namely Rajendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajendra Tiwari was also named in the FIR and he has initially been granted ad interim anticipatory bail on 03.02.2026 and thereafter the same has been finally allowed by order dated 27.02.2026. The copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure No. 9 to the paper book and the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the same as the allegation or if any material is there against the applicant is as similar to the allegation/material if any against his father Rajendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajendra Tiwari to whom anticipatory bail has been granted. For convenience, the order dated 27.02.2026 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶15

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Bhupendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 who has already filed his Vakalatnama in the Registry of the Court and has also filed the hard copy of the

¶16

NABAIL No. 637 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

same in the Court, which is taken on record, and perused the material placed on record.

¶19

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No.0082 of 2025, under Section(s) 191(2), 108 of BNS, 2023, Police Station - Sareni, District - Raebareli.

¶20

3. Vide order dated 03.02.2026, this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 03.02.2026, referred, reads as under : -

¶21

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶22

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No. 0082 of 2025, under Sections- 191(2), 108 B.N.S., Police Station-Sareni, DistrictRaebareli.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a bare reading of FIR would show that there is no allegation based upon which Section 108 B.N.S. can be attracted. He says that for the purposes of offence under Section 108 B.N.S., the prosecution has to allege and prove that the deceased was abetted/instigated by the accused immediately before committing suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, implication or conviction in terms of Section 108 B.N.S. is not sustainable. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 108 B.N.S., there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. This aspect is missing in this case. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) SCC Online SC 873.

¶24

4. Based upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra Alias Prabhat Mishra vs. State of U.P. and another, (2024) 3 SCC 665, it is also stated that only based upon the suicide note, the judgment of conviction cannot be passed and for convicting an accused under Section 108 B.N.S., the prosecution is under obligation to prove essential ingredients indicated under Section 108 B.N.S.

¶25

5. Considering the aforesaid and the case of prosecution against the applicant indicated in the FIR and also the judgments, referred above, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶26

6. Accordingly, as an interim measure it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accusedapplicant- Rajendra Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties (one of family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶28

NABAIL No. 637 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

(ii) That the accused-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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and

¶31

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶32

7. Issue notice to the opposite party No. 2. Steps in this regard be taken within seven days.

¶33

8. List/put up this application on 24.02.2026 within top 20 cases.

¶34

9. In the meantime, learned AGA is directed to file an affidavit in response to this application."

¶35

4. The learned counsel appearing for the prosecution could not demonstrate from the record that there is any adversarial facts which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the prosecution also could not point out any fact based upon which it can be inferred that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶36

5. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant - Rajendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajendra Tiwari, till disposal of the trial, subject to the following conditions:-

¶37

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

¶38

(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/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

6. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order."

¶43

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has nothing to do with the said incident as alleged in the FIR.

¶44

NABAIL No. 637 of 2026

¶45

4

¶46

It is further submitted that the ingredient of Section 108 BNS, 2023 i.e. Abetment is not attracted in the present case for the reason that to constitute the offence of abetment, there must be a course of conduct or action of intentionally aiding or facilitating another person to end his life.

¶47

It is further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab [2017 (1) SCC 433] has held that to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against the indictment. There must be evidence that an accused intended by such act(s) to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

¶48

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. (2021) INSC 618 wherein it has been held that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.

¶49

It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Mauni Mohalla, Sareni Bazar, P.S. Sareni, District Raebareli and the FIR has been lodged at Police Station Sareni, District Raebareli, so there is no chance of absconding and she has specifically pleaded in paragraph nos. 30 to 32 of the affidavit before this Court that she will not misuse the anticipatory bail and she will not influence the witnesses or temper with the evidence and co-operate during the trial as well as during the investigation by the Police.

¶50

It is further submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest by the Police and that is why, she has approached this Court by filing the present Anticipatory Bail Application. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶51

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant regarding parity of anticipatory bail order dated 27.02.2026 passed in the case of Rajendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajendra Tiwari i.e. the father of the applicant named in the FIR along with the applicant and the allegation against him is similar to that of the present applicant and also unable to dispute the

¶52

NABAIL No. 637 of 2026

¶53

5

¶54

submission made by learned counsel for the applicant particularly applicability of section 108 of BNS, 2023 in absence of the ingredients of the same.

¶55

In view of the aforesaid facts and looking into the circumstances, it is found that there is a case registered against the applicant with general and omnibus in nature and it cannot be definitely said when the police may arrest the applicant. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. It is also found that in the present case the chargesheet has yet not been filed. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused has not been properly comprehended; the applicant has not previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by the Court; as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant there is no possibility of her fleeing from the judicial proceedings and in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court finds it a fit case to issue an order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS.

¶56

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed granting anticipatory bail to the applicant- Vedika Pandey Alias Rangoli Alias Vedika Tiwari on the ground of parity till disposal of the trial by appearing before the court concerned and should furnish bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial/concerned Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶57

(i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and shall not abscond;

¶58

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62