Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Ms. Maansi Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as well as Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on record.

2. At the very outset, Ms. Maansi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that she may be permitted to not press the bail application of appellant no.2- Phoolchandra and appellant no.3- Bahadur at this stage and liberty may be given to file a fresh bail application for those appellants. the appellant may delete

3. Considering the aforesaid request, this bail application is treated bail application for appellant no.1- Smt. Shivdevi and learned counsel the name of appellant no.2- Phoolchandra and appellant no.3- Bahadur, as their bail application is treated dismissed being not pressed, at this stage. However, liberty is given to those appellants to file a fresh bail application.

4. Let necessary correction/amendment be made by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.

5. This is the first bail application, moved on behalf of the appellant/applicant no.1- (Smt. Shivdevi) in the instant pending 2 CRLA No. 461 of 2024 appeal. She has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 37, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2017 (State vs. Smt. Shivdevi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2016, lodged at Police Station Badosarai, District Barabanki.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant while pressing the bail application of the present appellant, submits that she remained in jail during the course of trial for a period of four and half months and after conviction order she has been sent to jail on 31.10.2023, since then she is in jail. Therefore, her total period of incarceration in jail is more than 06 and half years. Though, after getting bail during the course of trial, she did not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. As per allegation of the prosecution, she with the help of co- accused/convicts killed her husband as her relations with her husband were not allegedly sound and cordial. Though, there is no complaint of any kind whatsoever against the present appellant during her married life to the effect that her relation with her husband were not cordial. It has been submitted that she has been convicted for the sole reason that when the alleged incident took place, she was in her maternal place and the deceased died in a village of her maternal place under mysterious circumstances in as much as his dead body was recovered from the 'pond' having 07 antemortem injuries on the head. There is no eye witness account or 'last seen evidence'. The present appellant has been convicted only for the reason that the deceased was her husband who died in her village and on the date of incident he was in her maternal place, therefore, the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has been drawn against her and other co-accused/convicts.

8. Ms. Maansi Gupta has further submitted that the information of the incident has been given by the father of the present appellant but the F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the deceased i.e. Smt. Chhotki. While testifying, Smt. Chhotki has alleged that the present appellant was a lady of loose character, having illicit relations with other persons and she was residing in a house of her father. Though, factum of loose character of the appellant has not been proved by the evidence of other witnesses. She is not having any prior criminal 3 CRLA No. 461 of 2024 antecedents. Therefore, considering her total period of incarceration i.e. more than 06 and half years, the fact that she is a lady, she remained on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail and the undertaking that when the appeal is listed for final hearing learned counsel shall argue the appeal on merits, she may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting it was the sole responsibility of the appellant and her family members to explain the mysterious death of the husband of the appellant who died in a village of the appellant and he resided in the house of the present appellant on the last date of incident, so the learned Trial Court has properly drawn inference against the present appellant and her family members under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the materials available on record; without entering into the the appeal, considering the present merits of appellant/applicant is a lady, remained on bail during the course of trial; she remained in jail for more than 06 and half years; there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence; paper book is not ready and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that he shall address the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed after preparation of the paper book; there is no criminal history of the the present appellant/applicant, we, hereby, grant bail appellant/applicant.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of appellant/applicant is allowed.

12. Let the appellant/applicant- Smt. Shivdevi, who has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 37, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2017 (State vs. Smt. Shivdevi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2016, lodged at Police Station Badosarai, District Barabanki, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 4 CRLA No. 461 of 2024 the Court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) Half of the fine imposed by the Trial Court shall remain stayed subject to the condition that 50 % of the remaining fine amount shall be deposited with the Trial Court by the appellant within four weeks from the date of her actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

13. It is made clear that during bail, if the appellant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

14. It is also clarified that the present appellant has been granted bail mainly considering the fact that she is a lady and her sentence period is about more than 06 and half years, therefore, the co-convict(s) may not seek parity with her. furnished, 15. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the Trial Court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal. (Order on Appeal)

1. Office is directed to prepare paper book, at the earliest and a copy shall be provided to learned counsel for the appellant, forthwith.

2. List this appeal after doing aforesaid exercise in the month of January, 2026 for hearing. December 2, 2025 Praveen (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

1. Heard Ms. Maansi Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as well as Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on record.

2. At the very outset, Ms. Maansi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that she may be permitted to not press the bail application of appellant no.2- Phoolchandra and appellant no.3- Bahadur at this stage and liberty may be given to file a fresh bail application for those appellants. the appellant may delete

3. Considering the aforesaid request, this bail application is treated bail application for appellant no.1- Smt. Shivdevi and learned counsel the name of appellant no.2- Phoolchandra and appellant no.3- Bahadur, as their bail application is treated dismissed being not pressed, at this stage. However, liberty is given to those appellants to file a fresh bail application.

4. Let necessary correction/amendment be made by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.

5. This is the first bail application, moved on behalf of the appellant/applicant no.1- (Smt. Shivdevi) in the instant pending 2 CRLA No. 461 of 2024 appeal. She has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 37, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2017 (State vs. Smt. Shivdevi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2016, lodged at Police Station Badosarai, District Barabanki.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant while pressing the bail application of the present appellant, submits that she remained in jail during the course of trial for a period of four and half months and after conviction order she has been sent to jail on 31.10.2023, since then she is in jail. Therefore, her total period of incarceration in jail is more than 06 and half years. Though, after getting bail during the course of trial, she did not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. As per allegation of the prosecution, she with the help of co- accused/convicts killed her husband as her relations with her husband were not allegedly sound and cordial. Though, there is no complaint of any kind whatsoever against the present appellant during her married life to the effect that her relation with her husband were not cordial. It has been submitted that she has been convicted for the sole reason that when the alleged incident took place, she was in her maternal place and the deceased died in a village of her maternal place under mysterious circumstances in as much as his dead body was recovered from the 'pond' having 07 antemortem injuries on the head. There is no eye witness account or 'last seen evidence'. The present appellant has been convicted only for the reason that the deceased was her husband who died in her village and on the date of incident he was in her maternal place, therefore, the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has been drawn against her and other co-accused/convicts.

8. Ms. Maansi Gupta has further submitted that the information of the incident has been given by the father of the present appellant but the F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the deceased i.e. Smt. Chhotki. While testifying, Smt. Chhotki has alleged that the present appellant was a lady of loose character, having illicit relations with other persons and she was residing in a house of her father. Though, factum of loose character of the appellant has not been proved by the evidence of other witnesses. She is not having any prior criminal 3 CRLA No. 461 of 2024 antecedents. Therefore, considering her total period of incarceration i.e. more than 06 and half years, the fact that she is a lady, she remained on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail and the undertaking that when the appeal is listed for final hearing learned counsel shall argue the appeal on merits, she may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting it was the sole responsibility of the appellant and her family members to explain the mysterious death of the husband of the appellant who died in a village of the appellant and he resided in the house of the present appellant on the last date of incident, so the learned Trial Court has properly drawn inference against the present appellant and her family members under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the materials available on record; without entering into the the appeal, considering the present merits of appellant/applicant is a lady, remained on bail during the course of trial; she remained in jail for more than 06 and half years; there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence; paper book is not ready and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that he shall address the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed after preparation of the paper book; there is no criminal history of the the present appellant/applicant, we, hereby, grant bail appellant/applicant.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of appellant/applicant is allowed.

12. Let the appellant/applicant- Smt. Shivdevi, who has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 37, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2017 (State vs. Smt. Shivdevi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2016, lodged at Police Station Badosarai, District Barabanki, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 4 CRLA No. 461 of 2024 the Court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) Half of the fine imposed by the Trial Court shall remain stayed subject to the condition that 50 % of the remaining fine amount shall be deposited with the Trial Court by the appellant within four weeks from the date of her actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

13. It is made clear that during bail, if the appellant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

14. It is also clarified that the present appellant has been granted bail mainly considering the fact that she is a lady and her sentence period is about more than 06 and half years, therefore, the co-convict(s) may not seek parity with her. furnished, 15. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the Trial Court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal. (Order on Appeal)

1. Office is directed to prepare paper book, at the earliest and a copy shall be provided to learned counsel for the appellant, forthwith.

2. List this appeal after doing aforesaid exercise in the month of January, 2026 for hearing. December 2, 2025 Praveen (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)