High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 25.10.2024 in FIR/Case Crime No.509 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, & 105 of B.N.S., Police Station – Maholi, District – Sitapur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein allegation has been levelled against two accused persons including the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the informant/ complainant was an injured person and lodged the FIR on 06.10.2024. He has submitted that if the informant/ complainant had received serious injuries, which were fatal, she could have not lodged the FIR, rather the FIR could have been lodged by any other person. Further attention has been drawn towards the post-mortem report wherein it has been categorically indicated that cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. The date of death is 17.10.2024, therefore, after 11 days from lodging the FIR by the informant/ complainant herself, she died on 17.10.2024. Had serious injuries been received by the victim, cause of death would have been indicated on account of ante-mortem injuries. The present applicant is absolutely not aware as to how the informant/ complainant died and so far as the trivial disputes have been alleged in her statement and supplementary statement, those are not correct. The present applicant is step-mother of the victim (since deceased). Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. Besides, being lady, the applicant may be enlarged on bail granting her the benefit of Section 480 of BNSS.

4. Per contra, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A., has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that when the victim/informant received injuries on 5/6.10.2024, she was medically examined wherein some injuries have been indicated. However, he could not dispute the opinion of the Doctor conducting the post-mortem wherein it has been indicated that cause of death could not be ascertained. Sri Nikhil Singh has stated that as to whether the informant/ complainant died on account of injuries so received on 5/6.10.2024 or there was any different reason can be ascertained during the course of the trial.

5. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; perusing the material available on record; the fact that if the informant/ complainant had received serious injuries, which were fatal, she could have not lodged the FIR, rather the FIR could have been lodged by any other person; the post-mortem report categorically indicates that cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis; after lodging the FIR on 06.10.2024 by the informant/ complainant herself, she died on 17.10.2024 i.e. after 11 days; had serious injuries been received by the victim, cause of death would have been indicated on account of ante-mortem injuries; the applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 of BNSS and undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

7. Let applicant- Pushpa Devi 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 the B.N.S.S., 2023 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 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 25.10.2024 in FIR/Case Crime No.509 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, & 105 of B.N.S., Police Station – Maholi, District – Sitapur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein allegation has been levelled against two accused persons including the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the informant/ complainant was an injured person and lodged the FIR on 06.10.2024. He has submitted that if the informant/ complainant had received serious injuries, which were fatal, she could have not lodged the FIR, rather the FIR could have been lodged by any other person. Further attention has been drawn towards the post-mortem report wherein it has been categorically indicated that cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. The date of death is 17.10.2024, therefore, after 11 days from lodging the FIR by the informant/ complainant herself, she died on 17.10.2024. Had serious injuries been received by the victim, cause of death would have been indicated on account of ante-mortem injuries. The present applicant is absolutely not aware as to how the informant/ complainant died and so far as the trivial disputes have been alleged in her statement and supplementary statement, those are not correct. The present applicant is step-mother of the victim (since deceased). Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. Besides, being lady, the applicant may be enlarged on bail granting her the benefit of Section 480 of BNSS.

4. Per contra, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A., has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that when the victim/informant received injuries on 5/6.10.2024, she was medically examined wherein some injuries have been indicated. However, he could not dispute the opinion of the Doctor conducting the post-mortem wherein it has been indicated that cause of death could not be ascertained. Sri Nikhil Singh has stated that as to whether the informant/ complainant died on account of injuries so received on 5/6.10.2024 or there was any different reason can be ascertained during the course of the trial.

5. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; perusing the material available on record; the fact that if the informant/ complainant had received serious injuries, which were fatal, she could have not lodged the FIR, rather the FIR could have been lodged by any other person; the post-mortem report categorically indicates that cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis; after lodging the FIR on 06.10.2024 by the informant/ complainant herself, she died on 17.10.2024 i.e. after 11 days; had serious injuries been received by the victim, cause of death would have been indicated on account of ante-mortem injuries; the applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 of BNSS and undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

7. Let applicant- Pushpa Devi 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 the B.N.S.S., 2023 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 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench