Smt. Samiya Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85031

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10608 of 2025

Applicant :- Smt. Samiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manav Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238(a) B.N.S., Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons with regard to murder of the son of informant aged about four years but during investigation applicant, who was mother of the deceased, has been made accused on the ground that deceased was last seen along with her as she had taken the deceased to her paternal home on 17.10.2024 in the morning but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

¶10

He further submits, actually applicant along with deceased on 17.10.2024 at about 5.00 AM in the morning had gone to her paternal home which was adjacent to her matrimonial home and after sometime she returned and dropped her son in her paternal home but it reflects, in the meantime deceased had gone towards river side and accidentally fell in the river and died.

¶11

He further submits, from the post mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained one contusion on his head and this fact strengthen the defence version.

¶12

He further submits, being mother of the deceased applicant was

¶13

not having motive to commit his murder. He further submits, there is no evidence on record which can connect the applicant with the instant crime.

¶14

He further submits, even informant i.e. father of the deceased during trial did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile and his statement recorded by the trial court has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit dated 21.04.2025.

¶15

He further submits, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 27.11.2024 i.e. for last almost six months.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

Applicant is mother of the deceased and as per allegation she committed his murder, who was hardly four years old, but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except the alleged evidence of last seen there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶19

Further, considering the fact that however deceased had gone along with applicant on 17.10.2024 in the morning towards the paternal house of the applicant but subsequently even as per FIR applicant returned after dropping him in the paternal home, even evidence of last seen does not appear to be convincing.

¶20

Further, deceased sustained one head injury and he died due to Coma as a result of head injury, therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that while deceased was playing he sustained this injury and accidentally he fell in the river from where his dead body was found cannot be ruled out at this stage specially considering the fact that river is adjacent to the house of applicant.

¶21

Further, during trial husband of the applicant i.e. informant of the case has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case during trial.

¶22

Further, applicant is mother of the deceased and prosecution has not come with plausible motive against the applicant.

¶23

Further, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 27.11.2024 i.e. for last almost six months.

¶24

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant - Smt. Samiya be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶32

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 AK Pandey

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Samiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Samiya v. State of U.P.

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