State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nasim

1.Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Sri R.S. Dwivedi, State/opposite party on the application for bail. learned Additional Government Advocate filed by in an appeal first bail application 2.This appellant/applicant (Sunita Rawat) against the judgement and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Session Trial No.947 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nasim @ Mohd. Kasim & others) arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2021, under Sections 302/34 & 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District-Lucknow, whereby the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations, so far as it relates to the present appellant/ applicant (Sunita Rawat).

3.Sri Verma, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that the present appellant/ applicant remained in jail during trial for about one year and ten months and she is again in jail after conviction order for about one year and ten months. She remained on bail during trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Sri Verma has stated that this is a case where there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence so far as the role of the present appellant is concerned. She was not named in the F.I.R. As per initial prosecution story, the main assailants were other co-convicts, Nasim @ Mohd. Kasim and Ashok Kumar. He has stated that the deceased is husband of the present 2 CRLA No. 591 of 2024 appellant and her relations with her husband were cordial inasmuch as there was no complaint of her husband regarding any illicit relation of the present appellant with any other person.

5. Sri Verma has stated that only on the basis of circumstantial evidence the present appellant has been convicted and the learned trial court has not given any cogent findings and reasoning corroborating the allegations so levelled against the present appellant.

6. Sri Verma, learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant has also stated that the present appellant is having three children to whom there is no one to look-after them inasmuch as her husband has already died and she is in jail.

7. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present appellant/ applicant may be enlarged on bail as during the course of bail she did not misuse the liberty of bail and further she will not misuse the liberty of bail. He undertakes that as and when the appeal is listed for final hearing, he will argue the appeal on merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment.

8. On the other hand, Sri R.S. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid contentions of Sri Atul Verma, but could not dispute the fact that there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence. So far as the substantial evidences are concerned, Sri Dwivedi has stated that the PW-3 & PW-4 have deposed that the deceased had told them that his wife was having illicit relations with the co-convicts, Nasim @ Mohd. Kasim and Ashok Kumar, though there is no specific evidence or material to this effect.

9.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellant /applicant is a lady having three children to whom there is no one to look-after them as her husband has already died; there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence; the fact that during course of bail she did not misuse the liberty of bail, her total period of incarceration in jail before trial and after conviction is about four years; there is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present appellant, initially she was not named in the F.I.R., the undertaking of learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant that she will not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed, we find it appropriate that the present appellant/ applicant may be released on bail. 3 CRLA No. 591 of 2024

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11.Let the present appellant/applicant (Sunita Rawat), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail in the aforesaid session trial on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions. (i) The original copy of the bail bonds and sureties be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record after keeping its photocopy on record. (ii) So far as the amount of fine is concerned, the present appellant/applicant shall deposit 50% of the total fine amount within four weeks from the date of her release, however, the remaining 50% of the fine amount shall remain stayed. (iii) It is made clear that if the accused-appellant/applicant commits any offence during course of bail, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (iv) The present appellant/ applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

12. Before parting with it is made clear that the present appellant/ applicant has been granted bail mainly for the reason that she is a lady and she remained in jail for about four years, therefore, the other co-accused persons may not claim parity with the present appellant/ applicant and their bail applications may be heard and disposed of on its own merit. (Order on Appeal)

13.List this criminal appeal along with connected criminal appeals. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November25,2025 Suresh/

1.Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Sri R.S. Dwivedi, State/opposite party on the application for bail. learned Additional Government Advocate filed by in an appeal first bail application 2.This appellant/applicant (Sunita Rawat) against the judgement and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Session Trial No.947 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nasim @ Mohd. Kasim & others) arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2021, under Sections 302/34 & 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District-Lucknow, whereby the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations, so far as it relates to the present appellant/ applicant (Sunita Rawat).

3.Sri Verma, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that the present appellant/ applicant remained in jail during trial for about one year and ten months and she is again in jail after conviction order for about one year and ten months. She remained on bail during trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Sri Verma has stated that this is a case where there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence so far as the role of the present appellant is concerned. She was not named in the F.I.R. As per initial prosecution story, the main assailants were other co-convicts, Nasim @ Mohd. Kasim and Ashok Kumar. He has stated that the deceased is husband of the present 2 CRLA No. 591 of 2024 appellant and her relations with her husband were cordial inasmuch as there was no complaint of her husband regarding any illicit relation of the present appellant with any other person.

5. Sri Verma has stated that only on the basis of circumstantial evidence the present appellant has been convicted and the learned trial court has not given any cogent findings and reasoning corroborating the allegations so levelled against the present appellant.

6. Sri Verma, learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant has also stated that the present appellant is having three children to whom there is no one to look-after them inasmuch as her husband has already died and she is in jail.

7. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present appellant/ applicant may be enlarged on bail as during the course of bail she did not misuse the liberty of bail and further she will not misuse the liberty of bail. He undertakes that as and when the appeal is listed for final hearing, he will argue the appeal on merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment.

8. On the other hand, Sri R.S. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid contentions of Sri Atul Verma, but could not dispute the fact that there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence. So far as the substantial evidences are concerned, Sri Dwivedi has stated that the PW-3 & PW-4 have deposed that the deceased had told them that his wife was having illicit relations with the co-convicts, Nasim @ Mohd. Kasim and Ashok Kumar, though there is no specific evidence or material to this effect.

9.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellant /applicant is a lady having three children to whom there is no one to look-after them as her husband has already died; there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence; the fact that during course of bail she did not misuse the liberty of bail, her total period of incarceration in jail before trial and after conviction is about four years; there is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present appellant, initially she was not named in the F.I.R., the undertaking of learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant that she will not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed, we find it appropriate that the present appellant/ applicant may be released on bail. 3 CRLA No. 591 of 2024

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11.Let the present appellant/applicant (Sunita Rawat), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail in the aforesaid session trial on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions. (i) The original copy of the bail bonds and sureties be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record after keeping its photocopy on record. (ii) So far as the amount of fine is concerned, the present appellant/applicant shall deposit 50% of the total fine amount within four weeks from the date of her release, however, the remaining 50% of the fine amount shall remain stayed. (iii) It is made clear that if the accused-appellant/applicant commits any offence during course of bail, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (iv) The present appellant/ applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

12. Before parting with it is made clear that the present appellant/ applicant has been granted bail mainly for the reason that she is a lady and she remained in jail for about four years, therefore, the other co-accused persons may not claim parity with the present appellant/ applicant and their bail applications may be heard and disposed of on its own merit. (Order on Appeal)

13.List this criminal appeal along with connected criminal appeals. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November25,2025 Suresh/