RAMESHWAR TIWARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32691 of 2026

Rameshwar Tiwari And Another
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Nitish Ranjan Rajauria, Ram Autar
                                Verma, Yogesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Kumar Singh, G.A., Vimal
                                Tripathi

Court No. - 64
                      HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anupam Anand, learned
Brief Holder for the State and Sri Saurabh Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief
of Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the informant. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 0208 of 2025, under Sections 108, 85,
115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., and 3 & 4 D.P. Act, 1961, Police Station-
Pannuganj, District- Sonbhadra, during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is father-in-law
and applicant no.2 is mother-in-law of the deceased and have been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
11.11.2025. The first information report was lodged on 26.11.2025. The
delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case.
The deceased was married to the co-accused Lallu Tiwari in the year 2010.
According to the postmortem report, cause of death is Asphexia as a result of
antemortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first information report
and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made
out against the applicant. Mere allegations of demand of dowry, assault or
harassment, in absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid, on
the part of the applicant, would not by themselves constitute the offence of
abetment to suicide. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant
has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
                                                           BAIL No. 32691 of 2026
                                 2


cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan
Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and other (Criminal Appeal Nos.
2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicants
are in jail since 21.8.2026 having no criminal history. Investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case they are enlarged on bail,
they will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State and counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid
submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. According to the postmortem report, cause of death is Asphexia as
a result of antemortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first
information report and the material collected during the course of the
investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under
Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. There is no direct
act attributable to the applicants that could be construed as instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. The applicants
have no criminal antecedents. Further the applicants have presently remained
confined for more than a month and there is no hope of early conclusion of
trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore
by the State that the applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with
the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on
bail.

6. Let the applicants, Rameshwar Tiwari and Saroj @ Sarojani Devi
involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of
court concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
                                                                                              BAIL No. 32691 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
                                    at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

                                    September 28, 2026
                                    S.S.

                                                                                                (Vivek Varma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad