High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Sarvesh Alias Smt. Sarvesha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajai Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Despite name of Sri Ajai Kumar being printed in the cause list, there is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sarvesh Alias Smt. Sarvesha, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 344 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Ujhani, District- Budaun.

5. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 2.8.2024 by Smt. Kusuma, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. against Bhoore and Sarvesh (the present applicant) alleging therein that her husband Umesh is not traceable since 18.9.2023. A missing report regarding the same has already been given at the Police Station- Ujhani. On search Bachchoo, Jasram, Aneesha and Shreepal told her that on 18.9.2023 her husband Umesh was seen with Bhoore and his wife Sarvesh in the morning going towards the fields. Later on the informant asked Bhoore and Sarvesh about it but they did not tell anything. On 23.09.2023 skeleton of her husband and his clothes were found at some distance of village in the bush. An information was given at Police Station on which inquest and post mortem examination was done. Samples were sent for D.N.A. testing also. The report has come. Her husband was having dispute with Bhoore and Sarvesh because of partition of property. The accused persons were having enmity with him due to the same. Report be lodged and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the police recovered skeletal structure only on 23.09.2023 which was subjected to post mortem examination and the doctor found only skeletal structure present with maggots on it. It is submitted that cause of death could not ascertained and clavicle bone was sent for ascertaining time since death. Cause of death was not ascertained and hence left clavicle bone was sent for ascertaining cause of death and D.N.A. Examination. It is submitted that report of Forensic Lab regarding testing of clavicle bone has been received in which the doctor did not found any poison in it. It is submitted that as such cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. It is submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged with an inordinate delay inasmuch as the husband of the informant went missing on 18.09.2023 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 02.8.2024 which is after about 10 months of the incident. It is submitted that naming of the applicant in the present matter is on the basis of suspicion only and there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was murdered. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady. It is submitted while placing para-28 of the affidavit that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.09.2024.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the F.I.R. has been lodged after more than 10 months of the husband of the informant went missing. Skeleton of the deceased was found at some distance of village in the bush. Cause of death even therein could not be ascertained and viscera report also did not find any poison in the clavicle bone which was sent for examination. Investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. There is no eye witness to the murder.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Sarvesh Alias Smt. Sarvesha, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Sarvesh Alias Smt. Sarvesha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajai Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Despite name of Sri Ajai Kumar being printed in the cause list, there is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sarvesh Alias Smt. Sarvesha, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 344 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Ujhani, District- Budaun.

5. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 2.8.2024 by Smt. Kusuma, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. against Bhoore and Sarvesh (the present applicant) alleging therein that her husband Umesh is not traceable since 18.9.2023. A missing report regarding the same has already been given at the Police Station- Ujhani. On search Bachchoo, Jasram, Aneesha and Shreepal told her that on 18.9.2023 her husband Umesh was seen with Bhoore and his wife Sarvesh in the morning going towards the fields. Later on the informant asked Bhoore and Sarvesh about it but they did not tell anything. On 23.09.2023 skeleton of her husband and his clothes were found at some distance of village in the bush. An information was given at Police Station on which inquest and post mortem examination was done. Samples were sent for D.N.A. testing also. The report has come. Her husband was having dispute with Bhoore and Sarvesh because of partition of property. The accused persons were having enmity with him due to the same. Report be lodged and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the police recovered skeletal structure only on 23.09.2023 which was subjected to post mortem examination and the doctor found only skeletal structure present with maggots on it. It is submitted that cause of death could not ascertained and clavicle bone was sent for ascertaining time since death. Cause of death was not ascertained and hence left clavicle bone was sent for ascertaining cause of death and D.N.A. Examination. It is submitted that report of Forensic Lab regarding testing of clavicle bone has been received in which the doctor did not found any poison in it. It is submitted that as such cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. It is submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged with an inordinate delay inasmuch as the husband of the informant went missing on 18.09.2023 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 02.8.2024 which is after about 10 months of the incident. It is submitted that naming of the applicant in the present matter is on the basis of suspicion only and there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was murdered. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady. It is submitted while placing para-28 of the affidavit that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.09.2024.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the F.I.R. has been lodged after more than 10 months of the husband of the informant went missing. Skeleton of the deceased was found at some distance of village in the bush. Cause of death even therein could not be ascertained and viscera report also did not find any poison in the clavicle bone which was sent for examination. Investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. There is no eye witness to the murder.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Sarvesh Alias Smt. Sarvesha, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad