Allahabad High Court

PANKAJ TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 9 February 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused, subject to strict conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Pankaj Tiwari, who was in custody for offences including IPC sections 498‑A, 323, 313, 504, 506, 406, 342, 427 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that the FIR was fabricated, that the alleged fetal injury was medically unsubstantiated, and that the co‑accused had not been charge‑sheeted. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges, the risk of witness tampering, and the prima facie case. The Court examined the medical report, the lack of a charge sheet against the co‑accused, and the applicant’s clean record, and, without deciding on the merits, found sufficient grounds to grant bail with conditions. Accordingly, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and further criminal activity.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 despite the seriousness of the charges.
Whether the prima facie case and risk of witness tampering justify denial of bail.
Whether the medical evidence and lack of charge sheet against a co‑accused affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 323, 342, 406, 427, 498-A, 504, 506

Subjects

bail
dowry death
IPC 498-A
criminal procedure
witness tampering
medical evidence
preliminary hearing

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25798 of 2025

Pankaj Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Chaubey

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari along with Shri Raj Kumar Tiwari, learned
counsels for the applicant, Shri Shashank Singh, learned Brief Holder for the
State, Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant
and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Pankaj
Tiwari, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2023, under
Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 504, 506, 406, 342, 427 IPC and Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, during
the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the
applicant in the Court below has been rejected by the learned Addl. District
& Sessions Judge (FTC)-Ist, Deoria vide order dated 11.7.2025 and the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 4.7.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and
is languishing in jail since 4.7.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that The applicant is the husband of the first informant. The
marriage was solemnized on 8.3.2019. The FIR in question has been lodged
nominating the applicant and six other family members of the applicant with
the allegation that the informant was harassed and beaten for bringing
insufficient dowry. The informant and the applicant began to live separately
in Gurugram (Haryana). The behaviour of the applicant at Gurugram did not
BAIL No. 25798 of 2025
2

change and the informant continued to be maltreated and deprived of food
and water. Her mobile phone was also taken away. The applicant invited his
friend Prakash Singh Mihir (co-accused) to live along with him. The
informant one day saw the applicant and co-accused Prakash Singh Mihir in
an objectionable state and raised a voice whereafter, they both beat up the
informant severely resulting in her miscarriage and death of the fetus in the
womb. In the FIR instances of physical harassment have been narrated.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the allegations set out in
the FIR are preposterous and the correct facts are that the informant is
employed in CSB Bank, Limited, Jawahar Nagar, Gurugram and earning
Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The informant was pregnant and the doctor on
examination advised her that the fetus had not developed and the embryonic
cardiac activity was not visualized on grey scale, colour droppler and M
mode study and advised her to abort the pregnancy. The allegation of
causing injuries to the fetus is false. In fact, this case is a case of no injury.
The applicant had approached a Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 11577 of 2023 and the applicant was relegated to mediation.
The informant demanded a sum of Rs.80 lacs and the mediation failed. The
writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.5.2024 protecting the co-
accused till the submission of charge sheet. As regards the applicant, it was
observed that in case the applicant surrendered before the Court within 60
days and applied for bail/anticipatory bail, the same would be considered in
the light of the decision rendered in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh versus State of U.P.

It has also been argued that the doctor who had examined the informant and
carried out the abortion procedure has not definitely stated that the abortion
was the result of the alleged injuries caused by the applicant. It is also
submitted that the charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed
and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The co-
accused Prakash Singh Mihir has not been charge sheeted which fact clearly
demonstrate the falsity of the FIR version. Lastly, it is submitted that the
applicant has no criminal antecedents and shall extend all cooperation in the
trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if released. Hence, bail has been
prayed for.
BAIL No. 25798 of 2025
3

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering all above facts and circumstances, medical report with respect
to non development of fetus, opinion of the doctor, the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima
facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made
out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Pankaj Tiwari, involved in above mentioned
case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and
two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
February 10, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…