Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25954 of 2025 Smt. Parveen Devi State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dur Vijay Singh, Kamal Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Upadhyay Court No. - 64 1. List revised. HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Dur Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Parveen Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.58 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 427 IPC, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 12.02.2024 by Vijaypal Singh against Vijay Kumar and the applicant alleging therein that on 10.02.2024, his brother Sahiram was called by Vijay and his wife Smt. Parveen Devi. His brother used to go to their house since the last two years. On 11.02.2024 he received an information from the police that a burnt dead-body is lying near which a motorcycle having number plate on which number UP85CC3245 was written, is also lying in the jungle in village Khandeha on which he went there and identified the said dead-body and motorcycle of his brother. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the implication of the applicant in the present case is on account of suspicion only. It is further argued that there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is further argued 2 BAIL No. 25954 of 2025 that as per the prosecution case itself the deceased used to visit the house of the applicant since the last two years. Although the FIR states that the deceased was called by the applicant and her husband but there is no evidence coming forward that the deceased went from his house for the house of the applicant and had reached there. It is further argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder. The links in the chain of circumstances are conspicuously missing. It is further argued that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter, para 12 of the affidavit in support of bail application has been placed before the Court. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 13.2.2024. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no eye-witness to the murder. There is no evidence coming forward that the deceased went from his house for the house of the applicant and had reached there. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The links in the chain of circumstances are conspicuously missing. The applicant is a lady. The charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. 8. 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. 9. Let the applicant-Smt. Parveen Devi, 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. 3 BAIL No. 25954 of 2025 (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. 10. 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. 11. The bail application is allowed.
Decision
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 25, 2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad