High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Naveen Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 123 BNS, Police Station- Ahraula, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR along with as many as seven others and as per allegation made in the FIR, on 16.03.2025 at about 5:30 p.m. in the evening, applicant and other accused persons dragged the husband of the informant in the house of co-accused Ram Sakal and thereafter badly beaten him and administered some poisonous substance to him and when information was given at 112 then her husband has been taken to the hospital and during treatment, he died but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submitted that even from the FIR and statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it is apparent that she was not along with her husband at the time of incident and, therefore, she was not the eye-witness.

6. He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Sundar Pandey, who claimed himself to be eye-witness and reiterated the version of FIR but he is the brother of the deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement. He further submitted that if he would have witnessed the incident then he would have definitely tried to save his brother and immediately after the incident, he would have taken him to the hospital but there is no evidence on record in this regard, therefore, it appears, subsequently when Investigating Officer could not find any eye-witness then he introduced him.

7. He further submitted that applicant is lady and she is close relative of male accused Ram Sakal and only due to this reason, she has also been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that even there is no evidence, which can suggest that applicant administered any poisonous substance to the deceased.

9. He further submitted that however, deceased sustained number of injuries but post-mortem report suggests that he did not succumb to his injuries.

10. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 18.03.2025.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is specifically named in the FIR and eye-witness Sundar Pandey, who is, although, brother of the deceased, categorically disclosed her name in his statement recorded during investigation. They further submitted that even from the post-mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained number of injuries but they could not dispute the fact that admittedly, deceased did not die due to his anti-mortem injuries.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence that on call at 112, deceased was taken to the hospital. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is lady and she is close relative of one of the male co-accused. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and only general allegation has been levelled against her.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects, informant was not the eyewitness.

15. Further, it reflects, during investigation, when statement of brother of the deceased was recorded then he although started claiming himself to be eye-witness but considering the facts and circumstances of the case including his statement, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that, prima facie, he does not appear to be eye-witness.

16. Further, however, as per allegation, due to assault made by applicant and others deceased sustained number of injuries but admittedly, he did not die due to these injuries.

17. Further, however, as per prosecution, when information was given at 112 then through ambulance deceased was taken to the hospital from the house of co-accused Ram Sakal but there is no such evidence on record in this regard, which can show that deceased was taken to the hospital from the house of Ram Sakal.

18. Further, applicant is lady and she is close relative of co- accused Ram Sakal. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to her false implication, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

19. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 18.03.2025.

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- Kamlawati Alias Kamla 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 his 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.

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 :- 19.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Naveen Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 123 BNS, Police Station- Ahraula, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR along with as many as seven others and as per allegation made in the FIR, on 16.03.2025 at about 5:30 p.m. in the evening, applicant and other accused persons dragged the husband of the informant in the house of co-accused Ram Sakal and thereafter badly beaten him and administered some poisonous substance to him and when information was given at 112 then her husband has been taken to the hospital and during treatment, he died but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submitted that even from the FIR and statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it is apparent that she was not along with her husband at the time of incident and, therefore, she was not the eye-witness.

6. He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Sundar Pandey, who claimed himself to be eye-witness and reiterated the version of FIR but he is the brother of the deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement. He further submitted that if he would have witnessed the incident then he would have definitely tried to save his brother and immediately after the incident, he would have taken him to the hospital but there is no evidence on record in this regard, therefore, it appears, subsequently when Investigating Officer could not find any eye-witness then he introduced him.

7. He further submitted that applicant is lady and she is close relative of male accused Ram Sakal and only due to this reason, she has also been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that even there is no evidence, which can suggest that applicant administered any poisonous substance to the deceased.

9. He further submitted that however, deceased sustained number of injuries but post-mortem report suggests that he did not succumb to his injuries.

10. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 18.03.2025.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is specifically named in the FIR and eye-witness Sundar Pandey, who is, although, brother of the deceased, categorically disclosed her name in his statement recorded during investigation. They further submitted that even from the post-mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained number of injuries but they could not dispute the fact that admittedly, deceased did not die due to his anti-mortem injuries.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence that on call at 112, deceased was taken to the hospital. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is lady and she is close relative of one of the male co-accused. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and only general allegation has been levelled against her.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects, informant was not the eyewitness.

15. Further, it reflects, during investigation, when statement of brother of the deceased was recorded then he although started claiming himself to be eye-witness but considering the facts and circumstances of the case including his statement, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that, prima facie, he does not appear to be eye-witness.

16. Further, however, as per allegation, due to assault made by applicant and others deceased sustained number of injuries but admittedly, he did not die due to these injuries.

17. Further, however, as per prosecution, when information was given at 112 then through ambulance deceased was taken to the hospital from the house of co-accused Ram Sakal but there is no such evidence on record in this regard, which can show that deceased was taken to the hospital from the house of Ram Sakal.

18. Further, applicant is lady and she is close relative of co- accused Ram Sakal. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to her false implication, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

19. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 18.03.2025.

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- Kamlawati Alias Kamla 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 his 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.

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 :- 19.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad