State of U.P v. Najjo) arising out of Case Crime No

1.Heard Sri Subham Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent on the application for bail.

2.This is the first bail application filed by the appellant/applicant (Najjo) against the judgement and order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.C. 1), Gonda in Session Trial No.765 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Najjo) arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2022, under Sections 302 & 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Gonda, whereby the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that after conviction order dated 15.07.2024 the present appellant/ applicant is in jail. While sending her jail on 15.07.2024, her infant child aged about one and half years was also permitted to live with her mother as a separate order to that effect has been passed by the learned trial court on 15.07.2024.

4.Learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant has stated that after lodging the First Information Report she was sent to jail and she remained in jail till 18.03.2024. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, during the course of trial, she remained in jail for about two years and after conviction order dated 15.07.2024 she is in jail for about one year and four months. Her two and half years son is living with her in jail and he is not being looked after properly in jail atmosphere. 2 CRLA No. 3463 of 2024

5.Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that this is a case where admittedly there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence and on the basis of circumstantial evidence the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted. The dead body of daughter of the informant was found in the Pond of the village and no one had seen as to how the deceased was thrown into the Pond. Even the circumstantial evidence is so weak inasmuch as the prosecution story says that in the morning of the date of incident there was some trivial dispute between the present appellant/ applicant and the mother of the deceased but the mother of the deceased permitted her daughter (since deceased) to sleep in the night with the present appellant/ applicant.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that if the relation of the present appellant/ applicant with the mother of the deceased were not cordial, she would have not permitted her daughter to sleep with the present appellant/ applicant, therefore, such circumstantial evidence is not sound. Though the learned trial court while convicting the present appellant/ applicant did not consider such aspect carefully, therefore, to that extend, the findings of the learned trial court is perverse.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has reiterated that considering the period of incarceration of the present appellant/ applicant in jail i.e. about three and half years and the fact that her minor child of two and half years is living with his mother in jail since his birth, she may be enlarged on bail. He has undertaken on behalf of the present appellant/ applicant that she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8.Per contra, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application of the present appellant/ applicant by submitting that though there is no eye witness account or the last seen evidence but the circumstantial evidences are against her. She has stated that the aforesaid submission may be addressed during the course of hearing of the appeal, therefore, the appeal may be heard finally after preparation of the Paper-book.

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 there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence, the present appellant/ applicant is a lady of 19-20 years, her infant/ minor child of two and half years is living with her in jail since his birth, during trial for the short period when she was on bail she did not misuse the liberty of bail, the Paper-book is not ready and the undertaking of learned 3 CRLA No. 3463 of 2024 counsel for the present appellant/ applicant that 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.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11.Let the present appellant/applicant (Najjo), 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 six 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)

12.List this criminal appeal in the month of January, 2026.

13.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.) November10,2025 Suresh/

1.Heard Sri Subham Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent on the application for bail.

2.This is the first bail application filed by the appellant/applicant (Najjo) against the judgement and order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.C. 1), Gonda in Session Trial No.765 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Najjo) arising out of Case Crime No.120 of 2022, under Sections 302 & 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Gonda, whereby the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that after conviction order dated 15.07.2024 the present appellant/ applicant is in jail. While sending her jail on 15.07.2024, her infant child aged about one and half years was also permitted to live with her mother as a separate order to that effect has been passed by the learned trial court on 15.07.2024.

4.Learned counsel for the present appellant/ applicant has stated that after lodging the First Information Report she was sent to jail and she remained in jail till 18.03.2024. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, during the course of trial, she remained in jail for about two years and after conviction order dated 15.07.2024 she is in jail for about one year and four months. Her two and half years son is living with her in jail and he is not being looked after properly in jail atmosphere. 2 CRLA No. 3463 of 2024

5.Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that this is a case where admittedly there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence and on the basis of circumstantial evidence the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted. The dead body of daughter of the informant was found in the Pond of the village and no one had seen as to how the deceased was thrown into the Pond. Even the circumstantial evidence is so weak inasmuch as the prosecution story says that in the morning of the date of incident there was some trivial dispute between the present appellant/ applicant and the mother of the deceased but the mother of the deceased permitted her daughter (since deceased) to sleep in the night with the present appellant/ applicant.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that if the relation of the present appellant/ applicant with the mother of the deceased were not cordial, she would have not permitted her daughter to sleep with the present appellant/ applicant, therefore, such circumstantial evidence is not sound. Though the learned trial court while convicting the present appellant/ applicant did not consider such aspect carefully, therefore, to that extend, the findings of the learned trial court is perverse.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has reiterated that considering the period of incarceration of the present appellant/ applicant in jail i.e. about three and half years and the fact that her minor child of two and half years is living with his mother in jail since his birth, she may be enlarged on bail. He has undertaken on behalf of the present appellant/ applicant that she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8.Per contra, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application of the present appellant/ applicant by submitting that though there is no eye witness account or the last seen evidence but the circumstantial evidences are against her. She has stated that the aforesaid submission may be addressed during the course of hearing of the appeal, therefore, the appeal may be heard finally after preparation of the Paper-book.

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 there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence, the present appellant/ applicant is a lady of 19-20 years, her infant/ minor child of two and half years is living with her in jail since his birth, during trial for the short period when she was on bail she did not misuse the liberty of bail, the Paper-book is not ready and the undertaking of learned 3 CRLA No. 3463 of 2024 counsel for the present appellant/ applicant that 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.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11.Let the present appellant/applicant (Najjo), 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 six 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)

12.List this criminal appeal in the month of January, 2026.

13.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.) November10,2025 Suresh/