Rinku Devi @ Radhika Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased. Except the confessional statement of the applicant and the coaccused and the call detail records, there is no material against the applicant. The case is of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstance is not complete. It is next submitted that the co-accused Tanveer Alam, who was also named in the FIR and against whom similar allegations were levelled, has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 10.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1905 of 2023. Hence, the present applicant claims parity.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and she is languishing in jail since 18.02.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the bail order of the co-accused Tanveer Alam, the role assigned to the applicant

¶16

BAIL No. 3269 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

so also the fact that the case is of circumstantial evidence; the chain of circumstance appears to be incomplete; the applicant has no criminal history; she is languishing in jail since 18.02.2023 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Rinku Devi @ Radhika involved in Case Crime No. 106 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34, 404 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Pratapgarh, 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

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

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶25

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶26

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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

¶27

BAIL No. 3269 of 2024

¶28

3

¶29

accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

September 3, 2025 Shravan

¶32

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

Rinku Devi @ Radhika v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Devi @ Radhika v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home

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

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

Ravi @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rekha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.