High Court

1. Heard Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 105, 110, 333 BNS, Police Station Chaurakhas, District Kushinagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 6.9.2024 at about 18:34 hours and according to the FIR, on 5.9.2024 at about 3 pm in the evening, applicant and others who were collaterals of the informant, after entering in his house started abusing and made assault through wooden sticks and iron rod upon his father.

4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that co-accused Janardan and Prem caused serious injury on the head of the father of the informant through iron rod and when his mother tried to save him then applicant alongwith co-accused Durgawati and Birju caused injuries to her.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that father of the informant was admitted in the hospital where on 6.9.2024 at about 3 am in the morning, he died.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant side is the collateral of the informant and a property dispute is pending between both the sides and only due to this reason dispute arose between both the sides and unfortunately in the incident father of the informant died.

7. He further submitted that from the side of the applicant also co- accused Janardan i.e. husband of the applicant sustained serious injuries and from the side of the applicant also a FIR was lodged against the informant through an application u/s 173(4) BNSS.

8. He further submitted that it is a case in which both the sides sustained injuries and who was the real aggressor can only be ascertained by the trial court during trial.

9. He further submitted that applicant is the wife of co-accused Janardan and therefore, she has also been roped in the present matter.

10. He further submitted that from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it reflects that the role of causing injury to the deceased has not been assigned to the applicant but when the statement of the injured persons were recorded then they changed the version and stated that applicant alongwith her husband i.e. co-accused Janardan caused injuries to the deceased and this fact again suggests that on the basis of false allegations, applicant only being wife of the co-accused Janardan has been made accused in the present matter.

11. He further submitted that applicant is the lady, she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 8.11.2024.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, applicant is lady but record suggests that she equally participated in the incident and from the statements of the injured persons, it reflects that she made assault upon the deceased alongwith her husband i.e. co-accused Janardan but he could not dispute the fact that as per the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation co-accused Janardan and Prem caused injuries to the deceased.

13. He further could not dispute the fact that from the side of the applicant also co-accused Janardan sustained injuries and from the side of applicant also a FIR was lodged against the informant side. However, learned AGA further pointed out that the FIR from the side of applicant was lodged through an application under section 173(4) BNSS.

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

15. However, as per allegation, applicant alongwith others who were collaterals of the informant made assault and due to the assault made by them, father of the informant died and three persons sustained injuries but it reflects neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded during investigation, informant made allegation that applicant caused any injury to the deceased.

16. However, from the statements of injured persons it reflects they attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased to the applicant and her husband i.e. co-accused Janardan but considering the fact that applicant is the wife of the co-accused Janardan, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that only due to this reason, she has been roped in the present matter and during investigation, specific role of causing injury to the deceased has also been assigned to her alongwith her husband cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

17. Further, record also suggests that in the incident co-accused Janardan i.e. husband of the applicant also sustained injuries and from the side of the applicant, also a FIR was lodged against informant side alongwith their FIR was lodged through an application under section 173(4) BNSS.

18. Be that as it may, from the record it suggests that both the sides indulged in the fighting and therefore, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that who was the real aggressor can only be ascertained by the trial court.

19. Further, applicant is lady and she is having no previous criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 8.11.2024.

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

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

22. Let the applicant-Vidyawati, 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 her 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 27.2.2025 Ankita

1. Heard Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 105, 110, 333 BNS, Police Station Chaurakhas, District Kushinagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 6.9.2024 at about 18:34 hours and according to the FIR, on 5.9.2024 at about 3 pm in the evening, applicant and others who were collaterals of the informant, after entering in his house started abusing and made assault through wooden sticks and iron rod upon his father.

4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that co-accused Janardan and Prem caused serious injury on the head of the father of the informant through iron rod and when his mother tried to save him then applicant alongwith co-accused Durgawati and Birju caused injuries to her.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that father of the informant was admitted in the hospital where on 6.9.2024 at about 3 am in the morning, he died.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant side is the collateral of the informant and a property dispute is pending between both the sides and only due to this reason dispute arose between both the sides and unfortunately in the incident father of the informant died.

7. He further submitted that from the side of the applicant also co- accused Janardan i.e. husband of the applicant sustained serious injuries and from the side of the applicant also a FIR was lodged against the informant through an application u/s 173(4) BNSS.

8. He further submitted that it is a case in which both the sides sustained injuries and who was the real aggressor can only be ascertained by the trial court during trial.

9. He further submitted that applicant is the wife of co-accused Janardan and therefore, she has also been roped in the present matter.

10. He further submitted that from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it reflects that the role of causing injury to the deceased has not been assigned to the applicant but when the statement of the injured persons were recorded then they changed the version and stated that applicant alongwith her husband i.e. co-accused Janardan caused injuries to the deceased and this fact again suggests that on the basis of false allegations, applicant only being wife of the co-accused Janardan has been made accused in the present matter.

11. He further submitted that applicant is the lady, she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 8.11.2024.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, applicant is lady but record suggests that she equally participated in the incident and from the statements of the injured persons, it reflects that she made assault upon the deceased alongwith her husband i.e. co-accused Janardan but he could not dispute the fact that as per the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation co-accused Janardan and Prem caused injuries to the deceased.

13. He further could not dispute the fact that from the side of the applicant also co-accused Janardan sustained injuries and from the side of applicant also a FIR was lodged against the informant side. However, learned AGA further pointed out that the FIR from the side of applicant was lodged through an application under section 173(4) BNSS.

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

15. However, as per allegation, applicant alongwith others who were collaterals of the informant made assault and due to the assault made by them, father of the informant died and three persons sustained injuries but it reflects neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded during investigation, informant made allegation that applicant caused any injury to the deceased.

16. However, from the statements of injured persons it reflects they attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased to the applicant and her husband i.e. co-accused Janardan but considering the fact that applicant is the wife of the co-accused Janardan, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that only due to this reason, she has been roped in the present matter and during investigation, specific role of causing injury to the deceased has also been assigned to her alongwith her husband cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

17. Further, record also suggests that in the incident co-accused Janardan i.e. husband of the applicant also sustained injuries and from the side of the applicant, also a FIR was lodged against informant side alongwith their FIR was lodged through an application under section 173(4) BNSS.

18. Be that as it may, from the record it suggests that both the sides indulged in the fighting and therefore, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that who was the real aggressor can only be ascertained by the trial court.

19. Further, applicant is lady and she is having no previous criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 8.11.2024.

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

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

22. Let the applicant-Vidyawati, 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 her 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 27.2.2025 Ankita