Smt. Deepika @ Ankita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 21.3.2025 at around 08.00 pm, the informant's son Rohit Lodhi aged about 24 years along with his friend Manoj Rajput were going to attend birthday party in the neighbouring village Laltakhera on his motorcycle. It is further alleged that some unknown persons have cut their throat by sharp edged weapon on the way at Barkatabad bridge.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady. There is no eyewitness in this case. The case is of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete. He submits that except the confessional statement of the applicant and the co-accused, there is no other material with the prosecution. He submits that the present applicant is pregnant and she has to undergo delivery in this month.

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and she is languishing in jail since 23.3.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

BAIL No. 8189 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of double murder. Thus, the offence is heinous in nature. However, they have not disputed the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries of both the deceased; the case is of circumstantial evidence; the chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete; the applicant is a lady and she has to undergo delivery in this month; she has no criminal history; she is languishing in jail since 23.3.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Smt. Deepika @ Ankita involved in Case Crime No. 84 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., Police StationKakori, District- Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) The applicant 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.

¶25

(iv) 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.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date

¶27

BAIL No. 8189 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶30

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

September 8, 2025 Shravan

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Deepika @ Ankita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Deepika @ Ankita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagwandeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neetu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Jabaaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.