Jiya Khan @ Gudiya vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15051 of 2025

Jiya Khan @ Gudiya

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Gaurav Kumar Singh,	Priyanka Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 1884 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 453 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Shahpur, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶11

Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is stated to be the person, who used to reside in the same house wherein the deceased person was also used to live. The allegations have been made only on the basis of suspicion. It is admitted by the landlady of the said house that the applicant was not present at the time of incident.

¶12

Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained in the affidavit. The

¶13

BAIL No. 15051 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

applicant is languishing in jail since 23.08.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶18

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶19

It is a settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶20

The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830; Inhuman

¶21

BAIL No. 15051 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re. (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695) .

¶24

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Jiya Khan @ Gudiya , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶27

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

¶28

ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶31

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶32

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶33

October 13, 2025 Siddhant

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jiya Khan @ Gudiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiya Khan @ Gudiya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Singh vs State of U.P.

Amar Kumar Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kirashna vs State of U.P.

Neeraj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Fullu vs State of U.P.

Maheenudeen vs State of U.P.