Allahabad High Court
RAJNI TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The Court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail and allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that it remain in force until the trial concludes.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Rajni Tiwari in criminal case No. 697 of 2025, where she was charged under IPC sections 80, 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 and sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. She had already been granted interim anticipatory bail on 19 November 2025 and argued that the allegations against her were false, she was merely the mother‑in‑law of the deceased, and no specific charge was made against her. The State opposed the relief but did not dispute the factual contentions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court examined the criteria for granting anticipatory bail, including the nature of the offence, the accused’s role, and the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing. The Court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail, ordering that it remain in force until the trial concludes, subject to the same conditions previously imposed. It clarified that the bail order would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant should be confirmed and continued till the conclusion of the trial
- Whether the facts and circumstances justify the grant of anticipatory bail under the applicable legal criteria
Legislation cited
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 80, 85
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- false allegations
- bail duration
- judicial discretion
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9563 of 2025
Rajni Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, Anand Pati Tiwari,
G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 697 of 2025 under Sections 80, 85,
115(2), 351(2), 352 and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Auraiya,
District Auraiya.
3. Applicant is already on interim anticipatory bail granted vide order
dated 19.11.2025.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and on the basis of false allegation, she has been
made accused in the present matter. He further submits that applicant is
mother-in-law of the deceased and there is no specific allegation is
against her. He further submitted that husband of the deceased has been
granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6799 of
2026. It is next submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant may be
confirmed.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by
NABAIL No. 9563 of 2025
2
learned counsel for the applicant.
6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject
finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration
invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It
has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending
on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the
charge sheet till trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
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.
7. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, interim anticipatory bail earlier granted to the applicant
vide order dated 19.11.2025 is hereby confirmed. Applicant shall remain
on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on the earlier conditions
imposed upon her vide order dated 19.11.2025.
8. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed.
9. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to
the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming
his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…