Allahabad High Court

1.Heard Sri Sarjoo Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Sri R.S. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondent.

2.Sri Sarjoo Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants has filed the supplementary affidavit as well as the rejoinder affidavit, today in the Court, the same are taken on record. the appeal first bail application 3.This appellants/applicants (Shinka Devi W/o Sri Anil Kumar Gautam and Anil Kumar Gautam S/o Late Ram Khelawan). However, Sri Sarjoo Ram has requested that this first bail application may be treated as a bail application qua- Shinka Devi and the bail application on behalf of Anil Kumar Gautam may be dismissed being not pressed at this stage and liberty may be given him to file fresh bail application. filed by

4. Considering the aforesaid request, Sri Sarjoo Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants may be permitted to delete the name of Anil Kumar Gautam (appellant/ applicant No.2) from the array of appellants/ applicants and this bail application would be treated as first bail application of Shinka Devi i.e. the appellant/ applicant No.1. However, the appellant/ applicant No.2 (Anil Kumar Gautam) may file another application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., now under Section 430 (1) B.N.S.S., if so advised.

5. The present bail application on behalf of Shinka Devi is a first bail application in the appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 2 CRLA No. 2264 of 2024

15.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No.527 of 2021 (State vs. Shinka Devi and another) arising out of Case Crime No.123 of 2020, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Jathwara, District-Pratapgarh, 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 (Shinka Devi).

6. As per the prosecution story, on 01.04.2020 at noon, Dewar of the informant was called by Anil Kumar Gautam, the husband of the present appellant/applicant from Ekta Brick Kiln. The deceased (Rajesh Gautam) was allegedly having illicit relation with the present appellant/ applicant and due to that her husband deceitfully called him and with the help of his wife killed the deceased by a sharp edged weapon.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that there is no eye witness account to the incident in question. Even not a single statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded from any of the workers working at the Brick Kiln. One Iron Rod having blood stains was recovered on the pointing out of Anil Kumar Gautam and his wife (present appellant/ applicant) and was sent for F.S.L. but the report of F.S.L. has not been referred in the conviction order, therefore, it may be presumed that there is no report of F.S.L. regarding the weapon so recovered. Further, present appellant/ applicant is a lady remained on bail during trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail, although she remained in jail/ judicial custody during trial approximately for the period of one year. After conviction order dated 15.05.2024 she was sent to jail, since then, she is in jail. Therefore, the total period of incarceration of the present appellant/ applicant is about two years and six months. One fact has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant showing Annexure No.SA-1, which is a letter dated 02.12.2025 of the Superintendent of Jail, District-Pratapgarh indicating therein that present appellant was sent to the jail and her six months old daughter (Laxmi) was with her. Presently, the daughter of the present appellant/ applicant is aged about two years.

8. Learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant has stated that infant child of the present appellant/ applicant is being not looked-after properly in jail and she has been suffering a lot, therefore, the aforesaid fact may be considered sympathetically. He undertakes that the present appellant/ applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. The paper-book is not ready and as and when the paper-book is ready and copies thereof are provided to the concerning parties and appeal is listed for final hearing, he shall argue the appeal on 3 CRLA No. 2264 of 2024 merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment. He has also stated that direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest so that the appeal may be heard finally.

9.Per contra, Sri R.S. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application of the present appellant/ applicant by submitting that the present appellant/ applicant having common intention to kill the deceased has murdered him with the help of her husband. Even if her husband has killed the deceased, her culpability may not be absolved for the reason she was having common intention to commit the crime, therefore, she has been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The deceased received serious head injuries and those head injuries may be inflicted by a blunt object and Iron Rod which has been recovered on the pointing out of the present appellant/ applicant and her husband (Anil Kumar Gautam). So far as the F.S.L. report of Iron Rod is concerned, Sri Dwivedi has stated that though the conviction order has not referred any F.S.L. report but the Investigating Officer has proved that recovery. He may address the Court on the aforesaid aspect during the course of final hearing of the criminal appeal.

10.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, she remained on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail, her infant female child aged about two years is with her in jail who is allegedly not being looked after properly, there is no eye witness account of the incident in question, there is no direct evidence, after the alleged incident the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of any workers of the Brick Kiln where the incident in question has taken place; the Paper-book is not ready and the undertaking on behalf of the present appellant/ applicant that she will not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when the paper-book is ready and the appeal is next listed, we find it appropriate that the present appellant/ applicant may be released on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

12.Let the present appellant/applicant (Shinka Devi), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail 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 4 CRLA No. 2264 of 2024 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. (Order on Appeal)

13.List this criminal appeal in the month of February, 2026 for final hearing.

14.Office is directed to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rules. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December11,2025 Suresh/

1.Heard Sri Sarjoo Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Sri R.S. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondent.

2.Sri Sarjoo Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants has filed the supplementary affidavit as well as the rejoinder affidavit, today in the Court, the same are taken on record. the appeal first bail application 3.This appellants/applicants (Shinka Devi W/o Sri Anil Kumar Gautam and Anil Kumar Gautam S/o Late Ram Khelawan). However, Sri Sarjoo Ram has requested that this first bail application may be treated as a bail application qua- Shinka Devi and the bail application on behalf of Anil Kumar Gautam may be dismissed being not pressed at this stage and liberty may be given him to file fresh bail application. filed by

4. Considering the aforesaid request, Sri Sarjoo Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants may be permitted to delete the name of Anil Kumar Gautam (appellant/ applicant No.2) from the array of appellants/ applicants and this bail application would be treated as first bail application of Shinka Devi i.e. the appellant/ applicant No.1. However, the appellant/ applicant No.2 (Anil Kumar Gautam) may file another application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., now under Section 430 (1) B.N.S.S., if so advised.

5. The present bail application on behalf of Shinka Devi is a first bail application in the appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 2 CRLA No. 2264 of 2024

15.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No.527 of 2021 (State vs. Shinka Devi and another) arising out of Case Crime No.123 of 2020, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Jathwara, District-Pratapgarh, 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 (Shinka Devi).

6. As per the prosecution story, on 01.04.2020 at noon, Dewar of the informant was called by Anil Kumar Gautam, the husband of the present appellant/applicant from Ekta Brick Kiln. The deceased (Rajesh Gautam) was allegedly having illicit relation with the present appellant/ applicant and due to that her husband deceitfully called him and with the help of his wife killed the deceased by a sharp edged weapon.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that there is no eye witness account to the incident in question. Even not a single statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded from any of the workers working at the Brick Kiln. One Iron Rod having blood stains was recovered on the pointing out of Anil Kumar Gautam and his wife (present appellant/ applicant) and was sent for F.S.L. but the report of F.S.L. has not been referred in the conviction order, therefore, it may be presumed that there is no report of F.S.L. regarding the weapon so recovered. Further, present appellant/ applicant is a lady remained on bail during trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail, although she remained in jail/ judicial custody during trial approximately for the period of one year. After conviction order dated 15.05.2024 she was sent to jail, since then, she is in jail. Therefore, the total period of incarceration of the present appellant/ applicant is about two years and six months. One fact has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant showing Annexure No.SA-1, which is a letter dated 02.12.2025 of the Superintendent of Jail, District-Pratapgarh indicating therein that present appellant was sent to the jail and her six months old daughter (Laxmi) was with her. Presently, the daughter of the present appellant/ applicant is aged about two years.

8. Learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant has stated that infant child of the present appellant/ applicant is being not looked-after properly in jail and she has been suffering a lot, therefore, the aforesaid fact may be considered sympathetically. He undertakes that the present appellant/ applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. The paper-book is not ready and as and when the paper-book is ready and copies thereof are provided to the concerning parties and appeal is listed for final hearing, he shall argue the appeal on 3 CRLA No. 2264 of 2024 merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment. He has also stated that direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest so that the appeal may be heard finally.

9.Per contra, Sri R.S. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application of the present appellant/ applicant by submitting that the present appellant/ applicant having common intention to kill the deceased has murdered him with the help of her husband. Even if her husband has killed the deceased, her culpability may not be absolved for the reason she was having common intention to commit the crime, therefore, she has been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The deceased received serious head injuries and those head injuries may be inflicted by a blunt object and Iron Rod which has been recovered on the pointing out of the present appellant/ applicant and her husband (Anil Kumar Gautam). So far as the F.S.L. report of Iron Rod is concerned, Sri Dwivedi has stated that though the conviction order has not referred any F.S.L. report but the Investigating Officer has proved that recovery. He may address the Court on the aforesaid aspect during the course of final hearing of the criminal appeal.

10.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, she remained on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail, her infant female child aged about two years is with her in jail who is allegedly not being looked after properly, there is no eye witness account of the incident in question, there is no direct evidence, after the alleged incident the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of any workers of the Brick Kiln where the incident in question has taken place; the Paper-book is not ready and the undertaking on behalf of the present appellant/ applicant that she will not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when the paper-book is ready and the appeal is next listed, we find it appropriate that the present appellant/ applicant may be released on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

12.Let the present appellant/applicant (Shinka Devi), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail 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 4 CRLA No. 2264 of 2024 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. (Order on Appeal)

13.List this criminal appeal in the month of February, 2026 for final hearing.

14.Office is directed to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rules. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December11,2025 Suresh/