Rinki Yadav Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36540 of 2025

Rinki Yadav

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Shrivastava, Bhupendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Chaubia, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 02.04.2025. The first information report was lodged on 11.04.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The suicide note was produced after one month of the alleged incident. The veracity of the alleged suicide note is still to be ascertained. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is a lady and is

¶10

BAIL No. 36540 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

in jail since 16.05.2025 having no criminal history and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶13

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Rinki Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that she:

¶16