High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Sulekha Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivajee Srivastava,Shrikant Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Shivajee Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Bhudkuda, District Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.10.2024 against applicant and according to the FIR, on 17.10.2024, applicant had gone to her paternal home along with her children and on 20.10.2024 at about 12 noon, when she was returning then on the way on the river bridge, she threw her 8 months' old daughter, due to which she died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the real mother of the deceased and there was absolutely no occasion for her to threw her in the river and totally on the basis of false allegation, mother-in-law of the applicant implicated her in the present matter.

6. He further submits that however, during investigation when statement of 9 years' old daughter of the applicant was recorded who was along with the applicant at the time of incident then she also repeated the version of the FIR but it reflects that as after the FIR, applicant was sent to jail and in her absence daughter of the applicant was residing in her home along with her grand mother i.e. informant, therefore, under her pressure and instigation she stated against the applicant.

7. He further submits that actually, while applicant was going along with her children from the bridge near the railing then accidentally her 8 months' daughter who was in her lap slipped and fell in the river and died. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that, applicant tried her best to catch her but she fell and possibility cannot be ruled out that while applicant was trying to hold her daughter before falling then her 9 years' old daughter who was along with her would have presumed that applicant was actually throwing her sister and, therefore, merely on the basis of the statement of 9 years' old daughter of applicant at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of her infant daughter.

8. He further submits that from the statement of daughter of the applicant, it also reflects that at the time of incident, applicant along with her children was coming from the auto and after stopping the auto, she threw her daughter in the river but surprisingly, during investigation Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the auto driver and this fact again cast doubt on the version of the daughter of the applicant namely Sunaina.

9. He further submits that applicant is a lady having no criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than 4 months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that daughter of the applicant namely Sunaina was along with her at the time of incident and she categorically stated that in front of her, applicant threw the deceased in the river but he could not dispute the fact that witness Sunaina is aged about 9 years and at the time of recording of her statement she was in the house along with her grand mother i.e. informant of the case.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that as per the statement of witness Sunaina, applicant after stopping auto threw the deceased but during investigation, statement of the auto driver has not been recorded. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is the mother of deceased and she was not having any motive to commit her murder.

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

13. However, as per allegation, applicant who is the mother of deceased threw her in the river and incident has been witnessed by her 9 years' old daughter Sunaina but it reflects that informant i.e. mother-in-law of the applicant, who was not eye-witness, named the applicant in the FIR with similar allegation and considering this fact coupled with the fact that after lodgement of the FIR, applicant was sent to jail and behind her, her daughter Sunaina was residing along with her grand mother, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that she stated against the applicant only due to the pressure of her grand mother, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, admittedly, applicant is the mother of deceased and prosecution could not come forward any clear motive against the applicant. Further, from the statement of the daughter of the applicant namely Sunaina, it reflects that at the time of incident, applicant was coming from auto along with her and after stopping the auto, she threw her 8 months' daughter in the river but surprisingly, during investigation, statement of the auto driver has not been recorded.

15. Further, considering the facts of the case, defence taken by applicant that actually, accidentally, daughter of the applicant aged about 8 months' slipped from her lap, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

16. Further, applicant is a lady having no criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than 4 months.

17. Further, the law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent.

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

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

20. Let the applicant - Sulekha Devi 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 7.3.2025 S.A. SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Sulekha Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivajee Srivastava,Shrikant Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Shivajee Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Bhudkuda, District Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.10.2024 against applicant and according to the FIR, on 17.10.2024, applicant had gone to her paternal home along with her children and on 20.10.2024 at about 12 noon, when she was returning then on the way on the river bridge, she threw her 8 months' old daughter, due to which she died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the real mother of the deceased and there was absolutely no occasion for her to threw her in the river and totally on the basis of false allegation, mother-in-law of the applicant implicated her in the present matter.

6. He further submits that however, during investigation when statement of 9 years' old daughter of the applicant was recorded who was along with the applicant at the time of incident then she also repeated the version of the FIR but it reflects that as after the FIR, applicant was sent to jail and in her absence daughter of the applicant was residing in her home along with her grand mother i.e. informant, therefore, under her pressure and instigation she stated against the applicant.

7. He further submits that actually, while applicant was going along with her children from the bridge near the railing then accidentally her 8 months' daughter who was in her lap slipped and fell in the river and died. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that, applicant tried her best to catch her but she fell and possibility cannot be ruled out that while applicant was trying to hold her daughter before falling then her 9 years' old daughter who was along with her would have presumed that applicant was actually throwing her sister and, therefore, merely on the basis of the statement of 9 years' old daughter of applicant at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of her infant daughter.

8. He further submits that from the statement of daughter of the applicant, it also reflects that at the time of incident, applicant along with her children was coming from the auto and after stopping the auto, she threw her daughter in the river but surprisingly, during investigation Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the auto driver and this fact again cast doubt on the version of the daughter of the applicant namely Sunaina.

9. He further submits that applicant is a lady having no criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than 4 months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that daughter of the applicant namely Sunaina was along with her at the time of incident and she categorically stated that in front of her, applicant threw the deceased in the river but he could not dispute the fact that witness Sunaina is aged about 9 years and at the time of recording of her statement she was in the house along with her grand mother i.e. informant of the case.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that as per the statement of witness Sunaina, applicant after stopping auto threw the deceased but during investigation, statement of the auto driver has not been recorded. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is the mother of deceased and she was not having any motive to commit her murder.

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

13. However, as per allegation, applicant who is the mother of deceased threw her in the river and incident has been witnessed by her 9 years' old daughter Sunaina but it reflects that informant i.e. mother-in-law of the applicant, who was not eye-witness, named the applicant in the FIR with similar allegation and considering this fact coupled with the fact that after lodgement of the FIR, applicant was sent to jail and behind her, her daughter Sunaina was residing along with her grand mother, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that she stated against the applicant only due to the pressure of her grand mother, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, admittedly, applicant is the mother of deceased and prosecution could not come forward any clear motive against the applicant. Further, from the statement of the daughter of the applicant namely Sunaina, it reflects that at the time of incident, applicant was coming from auto along with her and after stopping the auto, she threw her 8 months' daughter in the river but surprisingly, during investigation, statement of the auto driver has not been recorded.

15. Further, considering the facts of the case, defence taken by applicant that actually, accidentally, daughter of the applicant aged about 8 months' slipped from her lap, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

16. Further, applicant is a lady having no criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than 4 months.

17. Further, the law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent.

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

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

20. Let the applicant - Sulekha Devi 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 7.3.2025 S.A. SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad