High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 59 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Gurubuxganj, District - Rae Bareli.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He has further submitted that the applicant is the informant in the present matter. He added that the son of the applicant was murdered and it is startling fact that the applicant (mother of the deceased) is implicated only on the statement of the Subhasini, daugher-in- law of the applicant, who was in fact annoyed with the family members, including the present applicant, and was living in her maika prior to 4 to 5 months of the alleged incident. He has also submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident in question and the prosecution prima-facie failed to channelize the story of the murder. He next submits that prima facie there is no evidence with respect to the fact that the present applicant was having any enmity with her son. He also submits that the applicant is a lady of 50 years of age and his son has been murdered and even she has been victimised and has been made scape-goat. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, thus, there is no possibility that she would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history, as is mentioned in paragraph No. 35 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and she is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would co- operate in the trial proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, she is not entitled for any relief.

5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is the informant in the present matter; the son of the applicant was murdered and the applicant (mother of the deceased) is implicated only on the statement of the Subhasini, daugher-in-law of the applicant, who was living in her maika since prior to 4 to 5 months of the alleged incident, there is no eye-witness of the incident in question and the prosecution prima-facie failed to channelize the story of the murder; there is no evidence with respect to the fact that the applicant was having any enmity with her son; the applicant is a lady of 50 years of age and his son has been murdered and even she has been victimised; the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, thus, there is no possibility that she would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses; the applicant has no previous criminal history, as is mentioned in paragraph No. 35 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and she is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect her with the offence, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of same and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

7. Let the applicant- Raj Kumari involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her 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 not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (ii) 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. She 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) 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.; and (iv) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

9. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 25.6.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 59 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Gurubuxganj, District - Rae Bareli.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He has further submitted that the applicant is the informant in the present matter. He added that the son of the applicant was murdered and it is startling fact that the applicant (mother of the deceased) is implicated only on the statement of the Subhasini, daugher-in- law of the applicant, who was in fact annoyed with the family members, including the present applicant, and was living in her maika prior to 4 to 5 months of the alleged incident. He has also submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident in question and the prosecution prima-facie failed to channelize the story of the murder. He next submits that prima facie there is no evidence with respect to the fact that the present applicant was having any enmity with her son. He also submits that the applicant is a lady of 50 years of age and his son has been murdered and even she has been victimised and has been made scape-goat. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, thus, there is no possibility that she would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history, as is mentioned in paragraph No. 35 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and she is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would co- operate in the trial proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, she is not entitled for any relief.

5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is the informant in the present matter; the son of the applicant was murdered and the applicant (mother of the deceased) is implicated only on the statement of the Subhasini, daugher-in-law of the applicant, who was living in her maika since prior to 4 to 5 months of the alleged incident, there is no eye-witness of the incident in question and the prosecution prima-facie failed to channelize the story of the murder; there is no evidence with respect to the fact that the applicant was having any enmity with her son; the applicant is a lady of 50 years of age and his son has been murdered and even she has been victimised; the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, thus, there is no possibility that she would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses; the applicant has no previous criminal history, as is mentioned in paragraph No. 35 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and she is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect her with the offence, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of same and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

7. Let the applicant- Raj Kumari involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her 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 not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (ii) 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. She 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) 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.; and (iv) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

9. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 25.6.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench