Kanchan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19253

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2893 of 2025

Applicant :- Kanchan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09/2025, under Sections 80(2)/85 BNS & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 14.01.2025 against the applicant's husband and son, stating that the informant had got his granddaughter married to the applicant's son co-accused Pradeep Rawat about 11 months ago. On 13.01.2025 he got information of death of his granddaughter and upon going to her matrimonial home, he found her dead body lying on a bed. The named accused persons were present there and the informant stated that he believed that they had killed his granddaughter.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent woman having no criminal history and she has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

¶11

applicant annexing therewith copies of statements, inquest report and post mortem report. The post mortem examination report mentions a ligature mark around neck of the dead body which was interrupted by 5 cm and the cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. In the additional statement, the informant stated that besides the named accused persons, the applicant, her younger son and brother-in-law of her husband, were also involved in killing of his granddaughter.

¶12

The investigating Officer has recorded statements of relatives of the deceased as well as some other persons, all of whom stated that the deceased had got married to the applicant's son in Samuhik Vivah. Some neighbors have stated that the deceased was living in her matrimonial home happily. About 15 days prior to the incident, the applicant's son had come to stay at Kundara Khurd with his wife where she committed suicide.

¶13

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the FIR version.

¶14

The learned AGA has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge sheet has been submitted on 12.03.2025 against the applicant, her husband and her son.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is not named either in the FIR or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and she has been implicated for the first time in the additional statement of the informant; the post mortem examination report reveals no sign of use of force; during investigation a witness has stated that the deceased was living happily in her matrimonial home and for the past 15 days she was living alone with her husband and the

¶16

applicant is a woman having no criminal history and she is languishing in jail since 17.02.2025 whereas investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant -Kanchan be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Pradeep/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanchan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan 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

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

Pawan Kumar Godiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Baburam and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.