LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as perused the record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 323 of 2025, in Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 88, 103(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)V and 3(2)V-a of SC/ST Act and Section 5(2)3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Palia Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Briefly stated prosecution case is that on 04.04.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., the deceased, aged about 19 years, was called by Dr. Neeraj Chaurasia (fake doctor), from his mobile in his clinic where Sarvesh Yadav, who was the paramour of the deceased, also there, where Sonam Sahni @ Simran (fake doctor) terminated the pregnancy of the deceased in wrongful manner and 2 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 when the condition of the deceased became deteriorated, then Sonam Sahni @ Simran alongwith her husband Vikky Sahni brought the deceased to their own residence and gave the treatment to her but condition of the deceased became more miserable, then the deceased was brought to Prerana Hospital located at Sampurnanad Road Palia, wherein the doctors declared the deceased as dead. Thereafter, Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahani threw the dead body of the deceased outside the road and ran away. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. As per autopsy report, it does not reveal that the deceased was pregnant and her death was occurred due to result of miscarriage. He next submits that autopsy report of the deceased clearly demonstrates that cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. He also submits that three antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased were found, thus, the postmortem report is not in consonance with the averments made in the FIR. He next submits that CCTV footage of the Prerana Hospital also demonstrates that the deceased was brought by Vikky Sahni and Sarvesh Yadav and the dead body of the deceased was also thrown by them only. He also submits that as per the FIR version, deceased was given treatment in the residence of Sonam Sahni and Vikky Sahni. He submits that there is no any link evidence which may connect the appellant directly to commission of the offence in any way. He also submits that as per prosecution case, it appears that this was the case of love affairs and when this came into knowledge of the parents of the deceased, due to fear of defame in the society, perhaps they themselves caused this incident which is a honour killing. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has no criminal history and she is languishing in jail since

06.04.2025. He next added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and she shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no 3 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned AGA the State have vehemently opposed contentions aforesaid and submit that appellant is named in the FIR. They also submit the appellant was involved committing the heinous offence and, as such, she is not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the appellant is wife of co-accused Vikky Sahni; the deceased was brought in the residence of Vikky Sahni and Sonam Sahni and after much deterioration of health of the deceased, she was brought by Vikky Sahni and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav in Prerana Hospital. In this respect, statement of Sunil Kumar was also recorded who admits that there was an illicit relation between his deceased-sister and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav. As per CCTV footage of Prerana Hospital, the deceased Savita was brought by co-accused Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahni on 05.04.2025 at about 08:10 a.m. in unconscious state and at about 08:14 a.m., they brought the deceased catching her hands and legs outside the hospital. As per the statements of the staff of Prerana Hospital, the deceased was brought by two persons in their hospital and they laid down the deceased over the bench and when they asked them, they stated that she has become unconscious and when staff of the hospital checked the pulse of the deceased, the fact came into their knowledge that the deceased has already died. As per autopsy report, the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling and three antemortem injuries were found on the body of 4 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 the deceased. Thus, there are two sets of the events. One set is that the deceased was brought in the clinic for getting abortion and second event is that the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. As per CCTV footage, she was in the care & protection of one co-accused Vikky Sahani and Sarvesh Yadav who was paramour of the deceased. No specific role of the appellant is attributed in the FIR and in the statements of other witnesses recorded during the course of investigation.The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025 and she has no criminal history and she has undertaken that in case she is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 323 of 2025, in Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 88, 103(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)V and 3(2)V-a of SC/ST Act and Section 5(2)3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Palia Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Sonam Sahni @ Simran be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to her family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution 5 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 29, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as perused the record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 323 of 2025, in Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 88, 103(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)V and 3(2)V-a of SC/ST Act and Section 5(2)3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Palia Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Briefly stated prosecution case is that on 04.04.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., the deceased, aged about 19 years, was called by Dr. Neeraj Chaurasia (fake doctor), from his mobile in his clinic where Sarvesh Yadav, who was the paramour of the deceased, also there, where Sonam Sahni @ Simran (fake doctor) terminated the pregnancy of the deceased in wrongful manner and 2 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 when the condition of the deceased became deteriorated, then Sonam Sahni @ Simran alongwith her husband Vikky Sahni brought the deceased to their own residence and gave the treatment to her but condition of the deceased became more miserable, then the deceased was brought to Prerana Hospital located at Sampurnanad Road Palia, wherein the doctors declared the deceased as dead. Thereafter, Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahani threw the dead body of the deceased outside the road and ran away. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. As per autopsy report, it does not reveal that the deceased was pregnant and her death was occurred due to result of miscarriage. He next submits that autopsy report of the deceased clearly demonstrates that cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. He also submits that three antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased were found, thus, the postmortem report is not in consonance with the averments made in the FIR. He next submits that CCTV footage of the Prerana Hospital also demonstrates that the deceased was brought by Vikky Sahni and Sarvesh Yadav and the dead body of the deceased was also thrown by them only. He also submits that as per the FIR version, deceased was given treatment in the residence of Sonam Sahni and Vikky Sahni. He submits that there is no any link evidence which may connect the appellant directly to commission of the offence in any way. He also submits that as per prosecution case, it appears that this was the case of love affairs and when this came into knowledge of the parents of the deceased, due to fear of defame in the society, perhaps they themselves caused this incident which is a honour killing. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has no criminal history and she is languishing in jail since

06.04.2025. He next added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and she shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no 3 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned AGA the State have vehemently opposed contentions aforesaid and submit that appellant is named in the FIR. They also submit the appellant was involved committing the heinous offence and, as such, she is not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the appellant is wife of co-accused Vikky Sahni; the deceased was brought in the residence of Vikky Sahni and Sonam Sahni and after much deterioration of health of the deceased, she was brought by Vikky Sahni and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav in Prerana Hospital. In this respect, statement of Sunil Kumar was also recorded who admits that there was an illicit relation between his deceased-sister and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav. As per CCTV footage of Prerana Hospital, the deceased Savita was brought by co-accused Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahni on 05.04.2025 at about 08:10 a.m. in unconscious state and at about 08:14 a.m., they brought the deceased catching her hands and legs outside the hospital. As per the statements of the staff of Prerana Hospital, the deceased was brought by two persons in their hospital and they laid down the deceased over the bench and when they asked them, they stated that she has become unconscious and when staff of the hospital checked the pulse of the deceased, the fact came into their knowledge that the deceased has already died. As per autopsy report, the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling and three antemortem injuries were found on the body of 4 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 the deceased. Thus, there are two sets of the events. One set is that the deceased was brought in the clinic for getting abortion and second event is that the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. As per CCTV footage, she was in the care & protection of one co-accused Vikky Sahani and Sarvesh Yadav who was paramour of the deceased. No specific role of the appellant is attributed in the FIR and in the statements of other witnesses recorded during the course of investigation.The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025 and she has no criminal history and she has undertaken that in case she is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 323 of 2025, in Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 88, 103(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)V and 3(2)V-a of SC/ST Act and Section 5(2)3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Palia Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Sonam Sahni @ Simran be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to her family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution 5 CRLA No. 2860 of 2025 witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 29, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench