High Court

Applicant :- Reeta Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238 B.N.S., Police Station Lotan, District Siddharth Nagar during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons and according to the FIR wife of the informant informed him that while his daughter aged about five years was playing outside the house some unknown person kidnapped her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the wife of informant and however nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation when the second statement of the applicant was recorded then she stated that she had developed illicit relationship with her brother-in-law i.e. Devar and as one day her daughter witnessed them in objectionable condition, therefore, she along with her brother-in-law i.e. co-accused Deepak Yadav committed her murder and concealed her body inside the pond and thereafter she has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits, as per prosecution, after disclosure statement of the applicant, the dead body of the deceased was recovered but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false and applicant is the real mother of the deceased and it is hard to believe that she would commit the murder of her daughter.

6. He further submits, actually informant was having suspicion that his younger brother was having illicit relationship with the applicant and therefore, after recovery of dead body, on his instigation police implicated the applicant in the present matter. He further submits, applicant neither admitted her guilt before police nor recovery of dead body was made on her pointing out.

7. He further submits, except the alleged recovery of dead body of the deceased from the pond on the disclosure statement of the applicant, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record and on the basis of such evidence, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

8. He further submits, during investigation along with applicant her Devar i.e. co-accused Deepak Yadav was also made accused and after considering the entire facts of the case he has been released on bail by this Court vide order date 24.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 390 of 2025.

9. He further submits, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 05.10.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as on the pointing out of the applicant the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a pond, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant on record but he fairly conceded except the recovery of dead body there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, it reflects that during investigation applicant, who is mother of the deceased, has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of her statement recorded before the Investigating Officer and apart from her statement, as per allegation, on her pointing out the dead body of the deceased i.e. her daughter was recovered from the pond but it reflects that except the above evidences there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

13. Further, however, as per allegation applicant developed illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, therefore, she committed the murder of her daughter along with him as she witnessed them during private moments but except the statement of applicant there is no other evidence on record which can suggests that applicant was having illicit relationship with her Dewar.

14. Further, after considering the entire facts of the case, brother- in-law (Dewar) of the applicant has already been released on bail by this Court.

15. Further, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 05.10.2024.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Reeta Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless her personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 AK Pandey

Applicant :- Reeta Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238 B.N.S., Police Station Lotan, District Siddharth Nagar during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons and according to the FIR wife of the informant informed him that while his daughter aged about five years was playing outside the house some unknown person kidnapped her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the wife of informant and however nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation when the second statement of the applicant was recorded then she stated that she had developed illicit relationship with her brother-in-law i.e. Devar and as one day her daughter witnessed them in objectionable condition, therefore, she along with her brother-in-law i.e. co-accused Deepak Yadav committed her murder and concealed her body inside the pond and thereafter she has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits, as per prosecution, after disclosure statement of the applicant, the dead body of the deceased was recovered but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false and applicant is the real mother of the deceased and it is hard to believe that she would commit the murder of her daughter.

6. He further submits, actually informant was having suspicion that his younger brother was having illicit relationship with the applicant and therefore, after recovery of dead body, on his instigation police implicated the applicant in the present matter. He further submits, applicant neither admitted her guilt before police nor recovery of dead body was made on her pointing out.

7. He further submits, except the alleged recovery of dead body of the deceased from the pond on the disclosure statement of the applicant, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record and on the basis of such evidence, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

8. He further submits, during investigation along with applicant her Devar i.e. co-accused Deepak Yadav was also made accused and after considering the entire facts of the case he has been released on bail by this Court vide order date 24.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 390 of 2025.

9. He further submits, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 05.10.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as on the pointing out of the applicant the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a pond, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant on record but he fairly conceded except the recovery of dead body there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, it reflects that during investigation applicant, who is mother of the deceased, has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of her statement recorded before the Investigating Officer and apart from her statement, as per allegation, on her pointing out the dead body of the deceased i.e. her daughter was recovered from the pond but it reflects that except the above evidences there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

13. Further, however, as per allegation applicant developed illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, therefore, she committed the murder of her daughter along with him as she witnessed them during private moments but except the statement of applicant there is no other evidence on record which can suggests that applicant was having illicit relationship with her Dewar.

14. Further, after considering the entire facts of the case, brother- in-law (Dewar) of the applicant has already been released on bail by this Court.

15. Further, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 05.10.2024.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Reeta Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless her personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 AK Pandey