High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.644 of 2023 (S.T. No.158/2024 'State vs. Asha'), under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16552 of 2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. List has been revised. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by State.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 644 of 2023, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station - Loni Border, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the wife of the informant, is stated to have administered some poisonous material to her daughter and also consumed it herself on 18.12.2023 at about 04:00 PM with an intention to cause her death and commit suicide.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant and the deceased were rushed to the hospital where the condition of the daughter of the informant was found serious, as such, referred for GTB Hospital, Delhi where she was declared brought dead but the applicant survived.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR itself is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the applicant herself has consumed poisonous material. Another allegation against the applicant is that she had thrown her daughter from the second floor but the said allegation is false.

7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2023 having no criminal history to her credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there was no allegation against the applicant of having thrown her daughter from the second floor rather the statement of the son of the informant was recorded and he has stated that it was the applicant, who had given some eatables to him and his sister (now deceased). He did not consumed the said eatables, as such, was saved but his sister (deceased) consumed it, as such, had died.

9. Learned AGA has further stated that there was no occasion by the child of the applicant to depose falsely against her. It is also stated that the applicant has not filed any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by State, as such, there is no rebuttal of the averments made in the counter affidavit.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

13. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that subsequent to the said order statement of PW-1/informant has been recorded and he has categorically stated during cross-examination that it was he who had got the applicant to jail. He has also admitted to the suggestions made that he had instituted the divorce petition eight days after the incident. He has categorically stated that he had not seen the applicant eating the said poison or administering it to anyone else, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is in jail since 30.12.2023 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. I myself have perused the earlier order of this Court dated 25.11.2024 and the material placed on record.

7. As per the said order, the statement of son of the informant was recorded who has categorically stated that the applicant had given some eatables to him and his sister, but he did not consume the said eatable while the deceased had consumed it. Only the statement of PW-1/informant has been examined.

8. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.

9. Under these circumstances and taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

12. 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 :- 22.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.644 of 2023 (S.T. No.158/2024 'State vs. Asha'), under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16552 of 2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. List has been revised. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by State.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 644 of 2023, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station - Loni Border, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the wife of the informant, is stated to have administered some poisonous material to her daughter and also consumed it herself on 18.12.2023 at about 04:00 PM with an intention to cause her death and commit suicide.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant and the deceased were rushed to the hospital where the condition of the daughter of the informant was found serious, as such, referred for GTB Hospital, Delhi where she was declared brought dead but the applicant survived.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR itself is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the applicant herself has consumed poisonous material. Another allegation against the applicant is that she had thrown her daughter from the second floor but the said allegation is false.

7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2023 having no criminal history to her credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there was no allegation against the applicant of having thrown her daughter from the second floor rather the statement of the son of the informant was recorded and he has stated that it was the applicant, who had given some eatables to him and his sister (now deceased). He did not consumed the said eatables, as such, was saved but his sister (deceased) consumed it, as such, had died.

9. Learned AGA has further stated that there was no occasion by the child of the applicant to depose falsely against her. It is also stated that the applicant has not filed any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by State, as such, there is no rebuttal of the averments made in the counter affidavit.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

13. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that subsequent to the said order statement of PW-1/informant has been recorded and he has categorically stated during cross-examination that it was he who had got the applicant to jail. He has also admitted to the suggestions made that he had instituted the divorce petition eight days after the incident. He has categorically stated that he had not seen the applicant eating the said poison or administering it to anyone else, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is in jail since 30.12.2023 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. I myself have perused the earlier order of this Court dated 25.11.2024 and the material placed on record.

7. As per the said order, the statement of son of the informant was recorded who has categorically stated that the applicant had given some eatables to him and his sister, but he did not consume the said eatable while the deceased had consumed it. Only the statement of PW-1/informant has been examined.

8. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.

9. Under these circumstances and taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

12. 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 :- 22.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad