Allowed

Alka Singh @ Neha Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2025BAIL/10544/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by a woman accused of culpable homicide against her father-in-law over a property dispute; counsel cited nine-day FIR delay and single fatal head injury. The court, without judging merits, released her on bail with conditions on trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions regarding attendance at trial.

Alka Singh @ Neha Singh Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10544 of 2025

¶3

Alka Singh @ Neha Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Azam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 16

¶10

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel who has filed power on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record, and perused the record.

¶12

Counter affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶13

The present application has been filed seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No.124 of 2024, under Sections 304, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Inayatnagar, District Ayodhya.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the incident took place on 14.03.2024, but the FIR has been lodged on 23.03.2024 i.e. after nine days. He further submits that son of the deceased had given information to the police and on his information, inquest was conducted on 14.03204 itself and the post-mortem was also done on the same day. Counsel for the applicant further submits that no FIR was lodged by the complainant or her son Sarvesh Kumar Singh and the FIR has been lodged only on 23.03.2024, which is an after thought. He also submits that the post-mortem report indicates that there is one fatal injury caused on the head of the deceased, which has been assigned to the applicant by the witnesses after such a long lapse of time. Counsel for the applicant also submits that there is a dispute between the deceased and the applicant, but that does not mean that she would kill the deceased, who is

¶15

BAIL No. 10544 of 2025

¶16

¶17

her father-in-law. It has also been submitted that till lodging of the FIR, there is no criminal history against the applicant and she is in jail since 16.09.2025. Applicant is a lady therefore benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. will have to be given to her.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that statement of Sarvesh Kumar Singh, son of the deceased, has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, in which he has assigned the role of assault against the applicant. He has further submitted that other witnesses, namely, Shiv Kumar, Ram Babu and Satyendra have also assigned the role of assault against the applicant. He has also submitted that the deceased was father-in-law of the applicant and due to property dispute, father-in-law has been killed by the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶19

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant has attributed the role of assault against the applicant, therefore, the bail is liable to be rejected.

¶20

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that the FIR has been lodged after delay of nine days; the argument that on the information of the son of the deceased, post-mortem was conducted on 14.03.2024 itself, but the FIR was lodged after delay of nine days, which is an after thought; the argument that applicant is a lady and she has been in jail since 16.09.2025 and without entering into the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Let applicant Alka Singh alias Neha Singh be released on bail in the above case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶22

(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.

¶23

BAIL No. 10544 of 2025

¶24

¶25

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(iii) 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, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(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 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶28

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶29

November 3, 2025

¶30

Rao/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alka Singh @ Neha Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alka Singh @ Neha Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shekhar Sandal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vikash Yadav (Regional Inspector) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addt. Chief. Secy. Prin. Secy. Home. Sachivalaya and Another

Ishwar Sahay and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Subhash Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

M/S Kalpana Industries Thru. Its Authorized Representative Rajiv Kumar Vs M/S K.D. Overseas Thru. Its Manager Competent Officer Haryana and 3 Others