Parmanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21612

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3209 of 2025

Applicant :- Parmanand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Nikita Mishra, the learned A.G.A. 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.353 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Gauriganj, District- Amethi.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.10.2024 against the informant's daughter-inlaw Rajneesha and some unnamed persons, stating that while the informant was sleeping outside her house in the night of 19.10.2024, her daughter-in-law Rajneesha came out shouting that her husband was lying dead inside her house. The informant saw that there were injury marks on his neck and arms. The informant stated that her daughter-in-law Rajneesha had beaten the informant's son and had tried to kill her previously also. She further stated that several people kept visiting her home stealthily and she apprehended that her daughter-in-law had caused the incident with some other persons.

¶9

The named accused Rajneesha herself had given an application to the police informing about the death of her husband and requesting for conducting inquest and postmortem

¶10

examination. The postmortem examination mentions multiple abrasions and contusions over front of neck, contusion over chest and temporal region of head, abrasions over lower lip and upper lip and the cause of death has been opined to be Asphyxia due to throttling.

¶11

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she reiterated the F.I.R. version and in response to the specific questions put by the Investigating Officer, she stated that Subhash Pasi, Parmanand Verma (the applicant), Anil Prajapati and Sahil Pasi used to visit her home due to illicit relations with her daughter-in-law and these persons had killed her son. She further stated that she had heard some sound of throttling and she and her neighbor Baijnath had called to enquire about the matter but her daughter-in-law did not give any reply. They thought that it was some other matter between husband and wife and went away and slept. A similar statement was given by Baijnath also. All the accused persons have been arrested and in their custodial statements, they have committed their involvement in commission of the offence. The Investigating Officer has examined Ram Sumiran and Bindra Prasad as independent witnesses, they stated that it was talked about in the village that the informant's daughter-in-law was having illicit relations with four persons named above and all of them have given effect to the incident.

¶12

In the confessional statement of the named accused Rajneesha, she stated that she got married to the deceased in the year 2009. She was living well with her husband but meanwhile she developed a relationship with co-accused Subhash due to which quarrels kept on taking place between her and her husband. During Navratri, her husband had beaten her very badly and when he told it to Subhash, he said that her husband

¶13

should be eliminated. Thereafter, all the accused persons, including the applicant, killed her husband. She further stated that while the accused persons were killing her husband, she was sleeping. when she woke up, all the other accused persons said that she should not tell it to any other person. She further stated that she had seen the applicant catching hold of the legs of her husband, Sahil was catching hold of his hands and Anil was catching hold of his neck

¶14

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

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and on the basis of written instructions, he has submitted that allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 17.12.2024.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that information of death and request for conducting postmortem examination was given by the named accused herself, who is wife of the deceased; in the statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the informant alleged that the her daughter-in-law was having illicit relations with four persons, all of whom came together to eliminate her husband; although some independent witnesses have endorsed this story, they have said this on the basis of common talk going on in the village and they have not disclosed the name of any specific person who disclosed this information; that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 21.10.2024, 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 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; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 17.4.2025

¶22

-Amit K-

¶23

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

Parmanand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. 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

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Koyali @ Rehana @ Khalikun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Jaikesh Pal @ Jagesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sri Jitendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Azam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.