High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondents.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Poonam Devi) is languishing in jail since 21.07.2024 in Case Crime No.0151 of 2024, under Sections 302/201 of IPC at Police Station-Fatanpur, District-Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report, wherein, the date of incident is indicated as 16.06.2024, but the First Information Report has been lodged on 20.07.2024, without explaining the inordinate delay of about 34 days. However, learned counsel has stated that initially the complainant lodged the First Information Report in respect of missing of his father. In the impugned FIR, four accused persons, including the present applicant have been named. Further, no motive or intention has been attributed to the present applicant, and even if the prosecution story is considered on its face value, the present applicant being a friend of accused Pushpa who was having motive or intention to kill the victim, has provided some part of her house to conceal the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased had been taken out after digging particular area of the house and the statement of those persons have been recorded who were involved in such offence to say that the present applicant had called them to conceal the dead body of the deceased in one place of her house. As per the prosecution story, the deceased was teasing, accused Pushpa. Co-accused Pushpa, the present applicant and the deceased were serving at the Gurgaon. There is no allegation against the present applicant for killing the deceased. There is no eyewitness account nor there is any last seen evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the husband of the present applicant as well as the co-accused Pushpa and her husband Vinod Kumar Gautam are in jail. At the best the allegation against her is that she provided some place at her house to conceal the dead body. The present applicant is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The charge-sheet has been filed and she undertakes that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Besides, being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 CrPC/480 BNSS.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but he could not disputed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2024; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; the undertaking of the present applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, the fact that she being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 CrPC/480 BNSS, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.

7. Let the present applicant (Poonam Devi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

8. It is made clear that since the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and she being a lady is given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, the parity of this order may not be claimed by the other co-accused persons.

9. In view of the aforesaid terms, the bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondents.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Poonam Devi) is languishing in jail since 21.07.2024 in Case Crime No.0151 of 2024, under Sections 302/201 of IPC at Police Station-Fatanpur, District-Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report, wherein, the date of incident is indicated as 16.06.2024, but the First Information Report has been lodged on 20.07.2024, without explaining the inordinate delay of about 34 days. However, learned counsel has stated that initially the complainant lodged the First Information Report in respect of missing of his father. In the impugned FIR, four accused persons, including the present applicant have been named. Further, no motive or intention has been attributed to the present applicant, and even if the prosecution story is considered on its face value, the present applicant being a friend of accused Pushpa who was having motive or intention to kill the victim, has provided some part of her house to conceal the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased had been taken out after digging particular area of the house and the statement of those persons have been recorded who were involved in such offence to say that the present applicant had called them to conceal the dead body of the deceased in one place of her house. As per the prosecution story, the deceased was teasing, accused Pushpa. Co-accused Pushpa, the present applicant and the deceased were serving at the Gurgaon. There is no allegation against the present applicant for killing the deceased. There is no eyewitness account nor there is any last seen evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the husband of the present applicant as well as the co-accused Pushpa and her husband Vinod Kumar Gautam are in jail. At the best the allegation against her is that she provided some place at her house to conceal the dead body. The present applicant is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The charge-sheet has been filed and she undertakes that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Besides, being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 CrPC/480 BNSS.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but he could not disputed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2024; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; the undertaking of the present applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, the fact that she being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 CrPC/480 BNSS, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.

7. Let the present applicant (Poonam Devi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

8. It is made clear that since the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and she being a lady is given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, the parity of this order may not be claimed by the other co-accused persons.

9. In view of the aforesaid terms, the bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench