SMT MALA TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 3281 of 2026

Smt Mala Tiwari
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Bharat Singh Pal, Shivangi Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : G.A.

Court No. - 72
                  HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

2. Earlier it was informed by the learned A.G.A. that notice has been served
upon informant. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of
informant of the present case. Thereafter, this Court issued notice to the
opposite party no. 2/informant vide order dated 30.07.2026.

3. As per office report dated 01.09.2026, notice has been served personally
upon the informant. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf
of informant to contest the present matter, therefore, the Court proceeds
further.

4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No.0001 of 2025, under Sections 376D, 354-C, 342, 506, 323,
120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Sections 5(g)/6 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Anti Human
Trafficking Unit, District City (Commissionerate Agra), with a prayer to
grant her anticipatory bail.

5. On the last occasion, i.e., 02.09.2026, this Court directed the learned
A.G.A. to obtain instructions as to whether the applicant is cooperating in
the investigation or not. The learned A.G.A. has filed an affidavit of
compliance, wherein it has been stated that the applicant is cooperating in
                                                        NABAIL No. 3281 of 2026
                                 2


the investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing
to do with the alleged offence, in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
her. It is further contended that the applicant is a lady. The informant/victim
is habituated to lodging false FIRs. Earlier, she lodged a first information
report against her mother, two brothers, sister and bhabhi under Sections
376, 511, 354(B), 323, 392, 325, 328, 120-B, 406 and 506 I.P.C., which was
registered as Case Crime No. 1011 of 2019 at Police Station Lanka, District
Varanasi. Thereafter, the informant lodged another Complaint Case against
her mother, Shanti Devi, and other family members on 25.10.2019, which
was registered as Complaint Case No. 2700883 of 2019. The applicant also
lodged an FIR against the informant on 10.03.2018 under Sections 419, 420,
120-B and 379 I.P.C., which was registered as Case Crime No. 0220 of 2018
at Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi (Commissionerate). As a
counterblast to the aforesaid FIR, the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case on 20.08.2025. A total of 11 persons have been nominated
in the FIR. No allegation of rape has been levelled against the present
applicant. The victim alleged that a physical relationship was established by
co-accused Satya Prakash Tiwari, Hariom Tiwari and Ravi Tiwari (brother
of the applicant). It is further contended that initially, the arrest of the
applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
02.12.2026 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23548 of 2025. However,
the same was dismissed on 10.02.2026. It is further contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the statements of the victim have been
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The Investigating Officer has
already recorded the statements of other witnesses, therefore, there is no
requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Co-accused Satya
Prakash Tiwari, who was nominated in the FIR and against whom the
allegation of rape has been made, has been granted regular bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents to her credit.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has
                                                         NABAIL No. 3281 of 2026
                                    3


also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail,
she shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation,
and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

9. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record.

10. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while
considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while
considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant
or not is a matter of discretion.

11. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal
liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to
arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation
becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of
influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest
can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.
A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and
the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the
Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond
or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the
accused.

12. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role
                                                                                             NABAIL No. 3281 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                    of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
                                    expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

                                    13. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
                                    directions:-

                                    (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt. Mala Tiwari, involved in the
                                    aforesaid case, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of
                                    trial, on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each
                                    of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the
                                    police station concerned or the court concerned.

                                    (ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
                                    investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
                                    required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

                                    (iii) 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/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
                                    officer; and

                                    (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    14. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                    Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.



                                                                                          (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad