Allahabad High Court

: Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Avinash Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. (Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 01 of 2024)

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, appellant/applicant as well as Shri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on record. learned counsel for first bail application, moved on behalf of

2. This appellant/applicant- Rekha Devi Saroj in the instant pending appeal. She has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2013 (State vs. Rekha Devi Saroj and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2012, lodged at Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant while pressing the bail application, submits although during trial she remained in jail for 02 years and 08 months, however, after grant of bail vide order dated 28.04.2015 by this Court, she remained on bail during the course of trial. After conviction order, she is in jail since 14.06.2024, therefore, her total period in jail about 04 years and 02 months approximately.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence in this case. However, as per prosecution story, the husband of the appellant has died on 15/16.08.2012 (midnight), but as per the evidence of expert i.e. P.W.-3/Dr. Suresh Singh, who has conducted the postmortem 2 CRLA No. 2493 of 2024 of the deceased, the death of the deceased might have been caused on 12/13.08.2012 and in any case the death cannot be caused on 14.08.2012 onwards.

5. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.14 of the Trial Court order, showing the evidence of P.W.-3/Dr. Suresh Singh. He has also shown the statement of the doctor, wherein he has categorically deposed that such death cannot be caused on 15.08.2012 onwards, therefore, as per Shri Srivastava, the prosecution story is that the deceased died on 15/16.08.2012 creates a suspicion. However, learned Trial Court has not examined the aforesaid facts properly.

6. He has next submitted that the present appellant is wife of the deceased. She was his second wife. He has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of ocular witness P.W.-6/Vinod Kumar Saroj, son of the deceased from first wife, who has turned hostile, as he has not supported the prosecution version. The said eye-witness has as a matter of fact appreciated the behaviour and conduct of the present appellant. He categorically stated that he had not seen the verbal fight of his deceased- father with the present appellant. Therefore, Shri Srivastava has stated that P.W.-1/informant/complainant has wrongly deposed that P.W.-6 is the eye witness. As per other evidence and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she was not present in the house when the alleged incident took place, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, she may be enlarged on bail.

7. Shri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present appellant with the help of co-accused Raja Saroj with whom she was having illicit relation committed the offence in question. The co-accused Raja Saroj @ Ramu Saroj was her nephew and was having relation with him before her second marriage with that nothing the deceased. However, he has stated incriminating has been recovered on her pointing out and the star witness P.W.-6/Vinod Kumar Saroj has turned hostile, but he will address all those issues at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the materials available on record; without entering into the merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellant/applicant is a lady, remained on bail during the course of trial; she did not misuse the liberty of bail; her total period of sentence is more than four years; nothing incriminating has been recovered on her pointing out, there is no eye witness account; the 3 CRLA No. 2493 of 2024 alleged sole eye witness P.W.-6 has turned hostile; the prosecution story is having no nexus with the evidence of expert witness i.e. P.W.-3/Dr. Suresh Singh regarding date of death; there is no previous criminal history of the convict and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant that he shall address the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed, we, hereby, grant bail to the present appellant/applicant.

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

10. Let the appellant/applicant- Rekha Devi Saroj, who has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2013 (State vs. Rekha Devi Saroj and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2012, lodged at Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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.

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. November 24, 2025 Praveen (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

: Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Avinash Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. (Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 01 of 2024)

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, appellant/applicant as well as Shri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on record. learned counsel for first bail application, moved on behalf of

2. This appellant/applicant- Rekha Devi Saroj in the instant pending appeal. She has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2013 (State vs. Rekha Devi Saroj and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2012, lodged at Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant while pressing the bail application, submits although during trial she remained in jail for 02 years and 08 months, however, after grant of bail vide order dated 28.04.2015 by this Court, she remained on bail during the course of trial. After conviction order, she is in jail since 14.06.2024, therefore, her total period in jail about 04 years and 02 months approximately.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence in this case. However, as per prosecution story, the husband of the appellant has died on 15/16.08.2012 (midnight), but as per the evidence of expert i.e. P.W.-3/Dr. Suresh Singh, who has conducted the postmortem 2 CRLA No. 2493 of 2024 of the deceased, the death of the deceased might have been caused on 12/13.08.2012 and in any case the death cannot be caused on 14.08.2012 onwards.

5. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.14 of the Trial Court order, showing the evidence of P.W.-3/Dr. Suresh Singh. He has also shown the statement of the doctor, wherein he has categorically deposed that such death cannot be caused on 15.08.2012 onwards, therefore, as per Shri Srivastava, the prosecution story is that the deceased died on 15/16.08.2012 creates a suspicion. However, learned Trial Court has not examined the aforesaid facts properly.

6. He has next submitted that the present appellant is wife of the deceased. She was his second wife. He has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of ocular witness P.W.-6/Vinod Kumar Saroj, son of the deceased from first wife, who has turned hostile, as he has not supported the prosecution version. The said eye-witness has as a matter of fact appreciated the behaviour and conduct of the present appellant. He categorically stated that he had not seen the verbal fight of his deceased- father with the present appellant. Therefore, Shri Srivastava has stated that P.W.-1/informant/complainant has wrongly deposed that P.W.-6 is the eye witness. As per other evidence and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she was not present in the house when the alleged incident took place, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, she may be enlarged on bail.

7. Shri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present appellant with the help of co-accused Raja Saroj with whom she was having illicit relation committed the offence in question. The co-accused Raja Saroj @ Ramu Saroj was her nephew and was having relation with him before her second marriage with that nothing the deceased. However, he has stated incriminating has been recovered on her pointing out and the star witness P.W.-6/Vinod Kumar Saroj has turned hostile, but he will address all those issues at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the materials available on record; without entering into the merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellant/applicant is a lady, remained on bail during the course of trial; she did not misuse the liberty of bail; her total period of sentence is more than four years; nothing incriminating has been recovered on her pointing out, there is no eye witness account; the 3 CRLA No. 2493 of 2024 alleged sole eye witness P.W.-6 has turned hostile; the prosecution story is having no nexus with the evidence of expert witness i.e. P.W.-3/Dr. Suresh Singh regarding date of death; there is no previous criminal history of the convict and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant that he shall address the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed, we, hereby, grant bail to the present appellant/applicant.

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

10. Let the appellant/applicant- Rekha Devi Saroj, who has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. with fine stipulations and default clause, vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2013 (State vs. Rekha Devi Saroj and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2012, lodged at Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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.

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. November 24, 2025 Praveen (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)