State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel appearing for the first informant is not present even in the revised list. His vakalatnama is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list.

4. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it.

5. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Smt. Suman, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 140 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, registered at Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat.

6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 09.03.2025 by Rajeshwar Kumar against Shakti, Pushpendra and Sumit alleging therein that on 09.03.2025 between 09:00-10:00 am in his absence, his son Balram was called by Shakti and taken away. At that time Neha his bhabhi was present in the house who asked Shakti about the reason on which he stated that there is some work for which he is taking. After sometime Neha called Balram but his phone switched off. On a suspicion of some untoward incident he started searching Balram and then Sani told him that the accused persons have murdered him in their house. Report be lodged and action be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the wife of co-accused Pushpendra who is named in the FIR as accused. It is further submitted that in the present case two persons namely Balram 2 BAIL No. 25180 of 2025 and Kumari Drishti have died. It is submitted that Balram was found to have received a single ligature mark on his body and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to strangulation whereas Kumari Drishti was found to have received one abrasion and a throttling mark on her neck and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to throttling. It is submitted that subsequently the prosecution has brought the case as a case of honour killing. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the matter during investigation. It is further submitted that Kumari Drishti one of the deceased is the daughter of the applicant and Pushpendra co-accused. It is submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.03.2025. the applicant has surfaced

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant and four other co-accused persons were seen coming out from the place of occurrence which is the house of Pushpendra from where both the dead bodies were found and recovered. It is submitted that as such the applicant was also involved in the present case.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Her implication in the present matter has surfaced during investigation, moreso, no overt act has been assigned to her. The present case is a case of circumstantial nature. There is no eye witness to the incident. The applicant is a lady. The case is distinguishable with that of the other named co-accused persons.

10. 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.

11. Let the applicant Smt. Suman, 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. 25180 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 84 BNSS, 2023 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 209 BNS, 2023. (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 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

12. 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.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 25, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel appearing for the first informant is not present even in the revised list. His vakalatnama is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list.

4. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it.

5. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Smt. Suman, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 140 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, registered at Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat.

6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 09.03.2025 by Rajeshwar Kumar against Shakti, Pushpendra and Sumit alleging therein that on 09.03.2025 between 09:00-10:00 am in his absence, his son Balram was called by Shakti and taken away. At that time Neha his bhabhi was present in the house who asked Shakti about the reason on which he stated that there is some work for which he is taking. After sometime Neha called Balram but his phone switched off. On a suspicion of some untoward incident he started searching Balram and then Sani told him that the accused persons have murdered him in their house. Report be lodged and action be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the wife of co-accused Pushpendra who is named in the FIR as accused. It is further submitted that in the present case two persons namely Balram 2 BAIL No. 25180 of 2025 and Kumari Drishti have died. It is submitted that Balram was found to have received a single ligature mark on his body and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to strangulation whereas Kumari Drishti was found to have received one abrasion and a throttling mark on her neck and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to throttling. It is submitted that subsequently the prosecution has brought the case as a case of honour killing. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the matter during investigation. It is further submitted that Kumari Drishti one of the deceased is the daughter of the applicant and Pushpendra co-accused. It is submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.03.2025. the applicant has surfaced

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant and four other co-accused persons were seen coming out from the place of occurrence which is the house of Pushpendra from where both the dead bodies were found and recovered. It is submitted that as such the applicant was also involved in the present case.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Her implication in the present matter has surfaced during investigation, moreso, no overt act has been assigned to her. The present case is a case of circumstantial nature. There is no eye witness to the incident. The applicant is a lady. The case is distinguishable with that of the other named co-accused persons.

10. 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.

11. Let the applicant Smt. Suman, 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. 25180 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 84 BNSS, 2023 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 209 BNS, 2023. (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 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

12. 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.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 25, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad