Sarita vs State of U.P.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.264 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station- Bindki, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR. She has subsequently been nominated on the basis of an application given by the brother of the deceased person, whereby it has been stated that applicant had illicit relationship with the deceased person and she alongwith her husband had committed the said offence.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that a false recovery of several parts of motorcycle alongwith a broken part of mobile, hairs of the deceased person and piece of burnt belt has been foisted on the applicant that too from an open place. The FIR itself is delayed, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶13

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is

¶14

BAIL No. 41788 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

languishing in jail since 11.7.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶18

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

¶19

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty" gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶20

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 .

¶21

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶22

Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and her name has come up subsequently, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶24

BAIL No. 41788 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

Let the applicant- Sarita , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶27

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

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶31

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶32

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶33

November 26, 2025

¶34

Vikas Verma

¶35

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Gulshan Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ramswaroop Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Balram Alias Kallu vs State of U.P. and Another

Islam Alias Samiullah vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh vs State of U.P.

Raj Singh Chandel vs State of U.P.