Sunaina vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36972 of 2025

Sunaina .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Kumar Rai, Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 64

¶3

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶4

Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Maneesh Mani Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Maneesh Mani Tripathi, counsel for the informant. Perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Jiyanpur, District- Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report the applicant along with ten named accused is alleged to have assaulted the husband of the informant and two others. The husband of the informant succumbed to the injuries. As per the postmortem report of the deceased Ajay Kumar, he received seven antemortem injuries. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were on the head region, whereas the other injuries were on other parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is coma due to antemortem head injuries. The other two injured received

¶8

BAIL No. 36972 of 2025

¶9

2

¶10

injuries, which were found simple in nature. It is contended that vague and general allegations has been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injuries on the head of the deceased. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 22.7.2025 having no criminal history. In case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report of the deceased Ajay Kumar, he received seven antemortem injuries. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were on the head region, whereas the other injuries were on other parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is coma due to antemortem head injuries. The other two injured received injuries, which were found simple in nature. Vague and general allegations has been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injuries on the head of the deceased. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three months and 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 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.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sunaina involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶14

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

BAIL No. 36972 of 2025

¶16

3

¶17

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶18

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

¶19