Aneeta v. State of U.P., has been dismissed as not pressed by Hon'ble

1.This is the second bail application. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5461 of 2025; Aneeta vs. State of U.P., has been dismissed as not pressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Prakash Singh vide order dated 26.06.2025. Now, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Prakash Singh has released the matter vide order dated 10.07.2025, therefore, this case has been listed before this Court.

2. Heard Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Aneeta) is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025 in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 93 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Harpalpur, District- Hardoi.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the allegation has been levelled against eight accused persons including the present applicant. Since the husband of the present applicant has been implicated, therefore, she has also been implicated, though she has not committed any offence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a case of double murder. The first person namely, Umashankar died on account of head injury and as per the confessional statement of the accused Pramod @ Pappu, he had assaulted upon the deceased through brick. On account of such single injury, the victim died. Another victim namely, Saroj is said to have been thrown from rooftop by all accused persons, but no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, rather general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons in respect of the victim Saroj who also died on account of head injury. The co-accused persons, namely, Suneeta and Aneeta have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5791 of 2025. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail. Charge-sheet has been filed. There is no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly. Besides, the present applicant being a lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S..

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has however vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant; the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Suneeta and Aneeta have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 (supra); the present applicant being lady may be extended the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S.; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the charge-sheet has been filed; the undertaking that the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicants may be enlarged on bail in this case.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant (Aneeta) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 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 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fail 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 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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 351 of B.N.S.S., 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

11. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition in terms of Section 346 B.N.S.S. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial proceedings properly. . Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.This is the second bail application. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5461 of 2025; Aneeta vs. State of U.P., has been dismissed as not pressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Prakash Singh vide order dated 26.06.2025. Now, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Prakash Singh has released the matter vide order dated 10.07.2025, therefore, this case has been listed before this Court.

2. Heard Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Aneeta) is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025 in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 93 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Harpalpur, District- Hardoi.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the allegation has been levelled against eight accused persons including the present applicant. Since the husband of the present applicant has been implicated, therefore, she has also been implicated, though she has not committed any offence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a case of double murder. The first person namely, Umashankar died on account of head injury and as per the confessional statement of the accused Pramod @ Pappu, he had assaulted upon the deceased through brick. On account of such single injury, the victim died. Another victim namely, Saroj is said to have been thrown from rooftop by all accused persons, but no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, rather general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons in respect of the victim Saroj who also died on account of head injury. The co-accused persons, namely, Suneeta and Aneeta have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5791 of 2025. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail. Charge-sheet has been filed. There is no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly. Besides, the present applicant being a lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S..

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has however vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant; the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Suneeta and Aneeta have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 (supra); the present applicant being lady may be extended the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S.; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the charge-sheet has been filed; the undertaking that the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicants may be enlarged on bail in this case.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant (Aneeta) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 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 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fail 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 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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 351 of B.N.S.S., 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

11. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition in terms of Section 346 B.N.S.S. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial proceedings properly. . Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench