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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27345

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13111 of 2024

Applicant :- Zannatunnisha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rayees Ahmad Khan,Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rashmi Singh,Sanjay Prakash Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 196 of 2024 under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS Police Station Pachperwa, District Balrampur.

¶9

As per contents of FIR in which applicant is not named, incident is said to have taken place on 13th August, 2024 at about 5.00 P.M. when the persons nominated in the F.I.R. allegedly attacked and injured the grand son of informant leading to severe injuries in his left eye.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that she has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her which would be evident from the fact that she has neither been named in the F.I.R. nor is there any allegation levelled against her and her name has been introduced on the subsequent statement of injured which was taken after two or three months of the incident and the aspect of improvement of story can not be denied. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 11th November, 2024 with evidence not yet having commenced. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with submission that statement of victim clearly indicates the specific role of applicant in injuring the grand son of informant. Learned counsel for informant has also drawn attention to the statement of doctor to submit that the left eye of injured has been permanently damaged. It is submitted that due to the aforesaid incident, the informant's family was forced to shift another city but the relatives of informant are yet threatening the informant.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned

¶13

counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor any allegation being levelled against her but her name has been nominated in view of statement of injured who has specifically named the applicant as injuring him. The injury report also indicates permanent damage to the left eye of the injured. However it is also an aspect relevant to consider that the applicant is under incarceration since 11th November, 2024 and as per report submitted by trial court dated 6th May, 2025, evidence has not yet commenced. It is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶14

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶15

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶16

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶17

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicant Zannatunnisha involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she

¶21

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.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS.

¶23

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS.

¶24

(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 BNSS. 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 him in accordance with law.

¶25

(v) In case any threat being extended by the applicant or her family member to the informant or his family, bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶26

Order Date :- 9.5.2025 prabhat

¶27

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

Zannatunnisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zannatunnisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Amar Bahadur @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kailash Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Lale @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ramdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.