Allahabad High Court

: Piyush Shrivastava, Hemant Kumar Pandey, Krishna Mohan Srivastava, Osama Syed, Riyaz Ahmad, Surendra Pal : G. A HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. Criminal Misc. Application/ I.A. No. 7 of 2025

1. Heard Mr. Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, Mr. Anirudh Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. This first bail application moved on behalf of appellant/applicant- Smt. Shabnam, who is convict of S.T. 260 of 2001 arising out of Case Crime no. 144 of 2000 under Section 147, 302/149, 323/149 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) V of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Shivgarh, District- Raebareli and sentenced maximum imprisonment of life with fine stipulations and default clause under Section 302/149 I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Raebareli.

3. Mr. Raiz Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that the present appellant/applicant is in jail since 5.12.2023. Annexure No. 8 of the bail application is a custody certificate of the appellant/applicant dated 22.3.2024 which indicates her total period of incarceration including remission is seven months and twenty three days, however, when further period w.e.f. 22.3.2024 is added, the total sentence period including remission would be 2 years, 3 months and 25 days. Learned counsel the appellant/applicant stated present appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and she did not misuse 2 CRLA No. 1121 of 2024 the liberty of bail.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the impugned F.I.R. which has been considered by the learned trial court wherein the allegation against the present appellant/applicant is that she was having pieces of bricks and had thrown on the house of the deceased and was seen along with other co-accused/co-convict persons, who were having bamboo cane. The injury report indicates that the deceased received six injuries and out of them the fatal injury as per doctor was Injury No. 2, as on account of Injury No. 2 i.e. assault on the back, below the scapula of the deceased he died due to internal bleeding. Even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, one eye witness was Mahesh Kumar (P.W.-9) but even that prosecution witness turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution story. If the prosecution story is considered on its face value it reveals that when initially all the accused persons attacked on the house of the victim since deceased, so as to save himself, the victim ran away from the place and reached one brick kiln, where the accused persons attacked through bamboo cane. Admittedly present appellant/applicant was not having bamboo cane with her, as she was already having small pieces of bricks. Further, at the time of incident in question the present appellant/applicant was having one infant child of one and half month as deposed by D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 and as such she could have not reached at the place where the other co-convict persons assaulted the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has lastly submitted that the present appellant/applicant has only been implicated only for the reason that she was shown to be in the company with the other co-accused persons, so she have been convicted invoking the provisions under Section 149 I.P.C. It has been further submitted that as a matter of fact, the alleged incident in question took place at spur of a moment and there is no premeditation or preparation to do any such illegal act and in any case no overt act could be attributed to her. Therefore, he has stated that the appellant/applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, Sri Anirudh Singh, learned A.G.A. has refuted the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant by submitting that although the present appellant/applicant was not having bamboo cane etc. the basic reason behind in question incident 3 CRLA No. 1121 of 2024 present appellant/applicant was defamed by the son of the deceased saying that she was talking with co-convict-Suresh and on account of that information all the accused persons reached at the place of incident and attacked upon him.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the material available on record and without entering into the merits of the issued involves in the present appeal as well as considering the fact that the present appellant/applicant is a lady; remained on bail during trial; did not misuse the liberty of bail; although she was shown to be in possession of bricks, however, the injuries sustained by the deceased could not be connected to the said pieces of bricks; she was having 1½ to 2 months old child at the time of incident and no probable evidence has come on record to show her continuous presence from the house of the victim to the crime spot i.e. brick kiln; the whole incident seems to be orchestrated at a spur of moment as no proof of pre-planning or knowledge has come on record relating to the act performed by other co-accused; there being no criminal history of the appellant/applicant; we grant bail to the present appellant at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended till the disposal of the appeal.

9. Let the appellant-Smt. Shabnam convict of the aforesaid sessions trial be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled. However, the remaining 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed.

11. 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.

12. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, 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. 4 CRLA No. 1121 of 2024

13. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book, if the same is not prepared as yet.

14. List the appeal in the Month of January, 2026 for final hearing of the appeal. . (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November 24 , 2025 Anuj Singh

: Piyush Shrivastava, Hemant Kumar Pandey, Krishna Mohan Srivastava, Osama Syed, Riyaz Ahmad, Surendra Pal : G. A HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. Criminal Misc. Application/ I.A. No. 7 of 2025

1. Heard Mr. Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, Mr. Anirudh Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. This first bail application moved on behalf of appellant/applicant- Smt. Shabnam, who is convict of S.T. 260 of 2001 arising out of Case Crime no. 144 of 2000 under Section 147, 302/149, 323/149 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) V of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Shivgarh, District- Raebareli and sentenced maximum imprisonment of life with fine stipulations and default clause under Section 302/149 I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Raebareli.

3. Mr. Raiz Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that the present appellant/applicant is in jail since 5.12.2023. Annexure No. 8 of the bail application is a custody certificate of the appellant/applicant dated 22.3.2024 which indicates her total period of incarceration including remission is seven months and twenty three days, however, when further period w.e.f. 22.3.2024 is added, the total sentence period including remission would be 2 years, 3 months and 25 days. Learned counsel the appellant/applicant stated present appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and she did not misuse 2 CRLA No. 1121 of 2024 the liberty of bail.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the impugned F.I.R. which has been considered by the learned trial court wherein the allegation against the present appellant/applicant is that she was having pieces of bricks and had thrown on the house of the deceased and was seen along with other co-accused/co-convict persons, who were having bamboo cane. The injury report indicates that the deceased received six injuries and out of them the fatal injury as per doctor was Injury No. 2, as on account of Injury No. 2 i.e. assault on the back, below the scapula of the deceased he died due to internal bleeding. Even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, one eye witness was Mahesh Kumar (P.W.-9) but even that prosecution witness turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution story. If the prosecution story is considered on its face value it reveals that when initially all the accused persons attacked on the house of the victim since deceased, so as to save himself, the victim ran away from the place and reached one brick kiln, where the accused persons attacked through bamboo cane. Admittedly present appellant/applicant was not having bamboo cane with her, as she was already having small pieces of bricks. Further, at the time of incident in question the present appellant/applicant was having one infant child of one and half month as deposed by D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 and as such she could have not reached at the place where the other co-convict persons assaulted the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has lastly submitted that the present appellant/applicant has only been implicated only for the reason that she was shown to be in the company with the other co-accused persons, so she have been convicted invoking the provisions under Section 149 I.P.C. It has been further submitted that as a matter of fact, the alleged incident in question took place at spur of a moment and there is no premeditation or preparation to do any such illegal act and in any case no overt act could be attributed to her. Therefore, he has stated that the appellant/applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, Sri Anirudh Singh, learned A.G.A. has refuted the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant by submitting that although the present appellant/applicant was not having bamboo cane etc. the basic reason behind in question incident 3 CRLA No. 1121 of 2024 present appellant/applicant was defamed by the son of the deceased saying that she was talking with co-convict-Suresh and on account of that information all the accused persons reached at the place of incident and attacked upon him.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the material available on record and without entering into the merits of the issued involves in the present appeal as well as considering the fact that the present appellant/applicant is a lady; remained on bail during trial; did not misuse the liberty of bail; although she was shown to be in possession of bricks, however, the injuries sustained by the deceased could not be connected to the said pieces of bricks; she was having 1½ to 2 months old child at the time of incident and no probable evidence has come on record to show her continuous presence from the house of the victim to the crime spot i.e. brick kiln; the whole incident seems to be orchestrated at a spur of moment as no proof of pre-planning or knowledge has come on record relating to the act performed by other co-accused; there being no criminal history of the appellant/applicant; we grant bail to the present appellant at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended till the disposal of the appeal.

9. Let the appellant-Smt. Shabnam convict of the aforesaid sessions trial be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled. However, the remaining 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed.

11. 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.

12. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, 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. 4 CRLA No. 1121 of 2024

13. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book, if the same is not prepared as yet.

14. List the appeal in the Month of January, 2026 for final hearing of the appeal. . (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November 24 , 2025 Anuj Singh